Tourism Inbound

Cogent Social Sciences
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oass20
The impact of geopolitical risks and international

relations on inbound tourism——evidence from
China and key source countries
Xie Wujie
To cite this article: Xie Wujie (2023) The impact of geopolitical risks and international relations
on inbound tourism——evidence from China and key source countries, Cogent Social Sciences,
9:2, 2285244, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
View supplementary material
Published online: 27 Nov 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 44
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oass20
Wujie, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2285244
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS | RESEARCH ARTICLE

The impact of geopolitical risks and international
relations on inbound tourism——evidence from
China and key source countries
Received: 15 June 2023 Xie Wujie1*
Accepted: 15 November 2023
Abstract: Good international relations are the foundation of inbound tourism.
*Corresponding author: Xie Wujie,
School of History Culture and Countries take cooperative or confrontational actions based on the judgment of
Tourism, Jiangsu Normal University, geopolitical risks, which are perceived as hostile or favorable by residents through
Xuzhou 221116, China
E-mail: xiewujie_419@163.com official media publicity, thus affecting inbound tourism. This paper uses panel data
Reviewing editor: from 1999 to 2018 for 10 tourist source countries of China, and uses the Tourism
Robert Read, Economics, University Gravity Model to study the impact of international relations and geopolitical risks on
of Lancaster, UK
inbound tourism. The paper also analyzes the moderating effect of geopolitical risks
Additional information is available at
the end of the article on international relations affecting inbound tourism. The results show that good
international relations have a significant role in promoting inbound tourism; how
ever, geopolitical risks have a significant negative impact on inbound tourism.
Geopolitical risks significantly weaken the positive effect of international relations
on inbound tourism. Policy-makers should be aware of the geopolitical media
climate and strengthen the maintenance of good international relations to promote
inbound tourism development.
Subjects: International Relations; Asian Politics; Tourism
Keywords: geopolitical risks; inbound tourism; international relations; tourism gravity

model; risk perception
ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Xie Wujie is an Associate Professor at Jiangsu Good international relations have a significant
Normal University, School of History Culture and positive effect on inbound tourism. However,
Tourism. She has finished her Ph.D. in Tourism geopolitical risks have a significant negative
Management at Shanghai University of Finance effect on inbound tourism. Countries take coop
and Economics. Her research interests are erative or confrontational actions based on the
Tourism Economics and Tourism Destination judgment of geopolitical risks, which are per
Marketing. ceived as hostile or favorable by residents
through official media publicity, thus affecting
inbound tourism. Therefore, geopolitical risk
greatly diminishes the positive impact of inter
national relations on inbound tourism.
Policymakers should pay attention to the geo
political media environment to enhance the
Xie Wujie maintenance of good international relations and
promote inbound tourism.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Page 1 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
1. Introduction
International relations with official diplomatic attributes are the basis and guarantee of interna
tional tourism with nongovernmental diplomatic attributes (Richter, 1983). Good international
relations will certainly promote international tourism interactions. The impact of international
relations on international tourism is one of the important research topics in tourism politics. As
early as 1978, Matthews began to pay attention to such issues. The political relationship between
the two countries is bound to affect tourists’ choice of destinations. International tourism needs
a stable political environment and good international relations. The deteriorating political environ
ment and volatile political situation negatively impact the sustainable development of interna
tional tourism. The impact of the political environment on tourism cannot be ignored, so
stakeholders must respond to political events promptly. When an unstable political environment
endangers the safety of tourists, it inevitably affects tourists’ choices of destinations (Richter &
Waugh, 1986). Political stability is the basic condition for the development of inbound tourism and
the fundamental and crucial condition for the success of international tourism (Hall, 1994).
Political conflict hinders cross-border tourism, while political cooperation stimulates international
tourism (Richter, 1989; Zhou et al., 2021); Some examples of this are the ideological confrontation
between groups from the East and West and the prohibition of two-way travel during the Cold
War. The political obstacle to tourism in the East stems from the fear that Western tourists may
erode communism (Kreck, 1998). The history of war trauma between China and Japan and political
conflicts over serious territorial disputes often interfere with bilateral tourism flows (Lin et al.,
2017).
There are still many research gaps (Butler & Mao, 1996) in the complex interaction between
politics and tourism (Chen et al., 2016). Scholars have conducted many analyses of tourism
development on isolated events, and most of the studies on international tourism use a bilateral
paradigm (Kim & Prideaux, 2012), and focuses on the negative aspects (conflicts) of political
relations (Su et al., 2020), e.g., the negative impact of crisis events on the two-way tourism flow
between China and the United States (Wang et al., 2009). However, good international relations
have a facilitating effect on inbound tourism, e.g., personal interests and institutional factors
(political and commercial interests) are driving forces behind the increase of Chinese visitors to
Africa (Chen & Duggan, 2016). However, there are few studies on inbound tourism due to changes
in international relations over a long period, less consideration is given to whether the intensity or
direction of the impact of international relations on inbound tourism is affected by other variables,
and little attention is given to the strength of direct effects in the case of contingency (an
uncertain and unstable environment).
There are only a few empirical literatures on the impact of international relations on inbound
tourism, e.g., Chu et al. (2021) empirically studied the impact of international relations/political
relations index (PRI) on international tourism, and the results show that political disputes have
a significant but short-lived impact on both outbound and inbound tourism in China; Zhou et al.
(2021) find that Sino-Japanese political relations affect tourism flows from China to South Korea.
However, China-Korea political relations had no significant impact on China-Japan tourism flows.
Su et al. (2022) empirically examined the two-way interaction between international relations and
tourism demand by using the 1996–2017 time-series international relations index (PRI) to capture
political/diplomatic relations between countries, and the results of the study showed that country
relations do affect tourist flows, but not vice versa. Most of these empirical studies, except Chu
et al. (2021), are studies based on time series data on international relations. Chu et al. (2021) uses
panel data to study the impact of international relations on China’s inbound and outbound
tourism, they focus on identifying the short-term impact of monthly data on political shocks on
the tourism market as opposed to the annual data on international relations and further find that
the mechanism of impact on China’s outbound tourism is the government’s intervention through
the issuance of travel warnings. In contrast, we are more interested in utilizing annual data to
determine the impact of political shocks on Chinese inbound tourism and further explore the
moderating effects of such impacts.
Page 2 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Geopolitical risk is one of the environmental foundations of international bilateral political

relations by viewing the impact of international crises and violence involving multiple countries
from a global perspective that is brought about by the country’s geographic location factors,
transcending the bilateral political relations between two countries. The Global Geopolitical Risk
Index, constructed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2018), not only captures acts and threats of terror
ism, but also considers the war risks, nuclear threats, and military-related tensions, representing
a range of exogenous global uncertainties (Balcilar et al., 2018). This uncertainty macro-
environment is as dark as the ocean and affects the relationship between international relations
and international tourism. So, the question is whether an increase in geopolitical risk in one
country affects international tourist arrivals in another country with this country’s normal inter
national relations, e.g., does the geopolitical risk of Russia’s Russo-Ukrainian conflict affect tourists
from China, does the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union affect tourists from China,
does the U.S.-Iraqi whether tensions in the U.S.-Iraq relationship will affect tourists from China, etc.
In this paper, we consider the impact of international relations between China and other
countries on inbound tourism and focus on the change in the intensity and direction of such
impact caused by geopolitical risks (GPR). The important contribution of this paper lies in geopo
litical risk as a moderating variable that makes the intensity of the impact of international relations
on inbound tourism change. Based on this, firstly, the impact of international relations on inbound
tourism should be explored; secondly, the in-depth analysis and discussion of the close relation
ship between geopolitical risks and the impact of international relations on inbound tourism; that
is, international relations involve cooperation and confrontation between countries that is formed
by taking actions based on geopolitical risk judgments, which are perceived by residents to create
hostility or goodwill through official media publicity, thus affecting inbound tourism. Based on this,
this paper proposes the changes that may occur in the intensity and direction of the impact of
international relations on inbound tourism under the influence of the moderating variable of
geopolitical risk. Finally, the moderating effects of the moderating variables are analyzed.
Accordingly, this study is organized as follows: the second part is the literature review and
theoretical assumptions, the third part is the data and methodology, the fourth part is the
empirical results, and the fifth part is the conclusion. The estimation model of this study is the
fixed effect model of panel data, which is used to analyze the impact of international relations on
inbound tourism, as well as the changes in the direction and intensity of this impact under
different geopolitical risks. The conclusions of the study can be important references for tourism
decision-makers and can also be used by international tourists to make destination decisions.
2. Literature review and theoretical hypothesis
2.1. Impact of international relations on inbound tourism

International relations are relations between countries in a power struggle, and their essence is
power politics. International relations consist of bilateral and multilateral relations, and we are
more concerned with international relations between two nation-states or categories of states
than with multilateral relations, i.e., bilateral relations. There are many actors active in the bilateral
relations constructed by the nation-state, such as international exchanges, commercial and
financial transactions, sports competitions, tourism, scientific conferences, educational exchange
programs, missionary activities, and so on. Bilateral relations are the main carrier of interaction
and contact between States in the international community. Bilateral relations are composed of
bilateral political relations, bilateral security relations, bilateral economic relations, and bilateral
cultural relations, etc., among which, political relations are always at the center and are the root of
other relations, and the relationship between the two countries in the political field is the barom
eter of the development and change of bilateral relations. Therefore, the international relations in
this paper mainly refer to the political relations in the bilateral relations between countries.
In general, the state of existence of a country’s bilateral relations, i.e., whether they are good or
bad, is a relative concept, and the state of bilateral relations presents a spectral sequence (Yan &
Page 3 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Zhou, 2004). The state of bilateral relations can be classified into six types in order, namely,
confrontation, tense, bad, normal, good, and friendly, and each of them can be divided into
three subtypes with different degrees. The best state of bilateral relations is friendly, such as
alliance relations and the worst state is confrontational, such as the state of war between the two
countries.
It is clear from the historical practice of international politics and the evolution of international
relations that the bilateral relations between countries is dynamic, not static. In the long run of
history, bilateral relations are in the process of development from one state to another, the
boundaries between the various states of relations are not clear-cut and closed, and the direction
of movement of the states of relations can be bi-directional, i.e., it is possible to go from good to
bad and from bad to good. Moreover, transformations and substitutions between the states are
sometimes jumps and do not evolve sequentially.
In the literature on international trade, the role of political relations has been well studied. For
example, political conflicts can reduce business in the short term (Hegre et al., 2010) and the long
term (Glick & Taylor, 2010). As a special form of service trade, international tourism is worth
studying separately.
Mathews’s theory of international relations and international tourism proposed that political
relations between international governments, economic and trade relations between government
public departments and enterprises, and relations between nongovernmental groups, organiza
tions, and personnel all have an impact on the development of international tourism. Among
them, the political relationship between international governments is the basis of other relation
ships, which is reflected in the signing of relevant agreements and the handling of entry and exit
visas, as well as the changes in exchange rates and the navigable network. The close economic
and trade ties between the government and enterprises, as well as the international economic
influence of large transnational corporations, make economic and trade relations one of the
important components of international relations. International economic and trade relations
affect international business tourism. Intercountry communications between civil groups and
organizations function as a “barometer” of international relations.
Situations such as warfare, political coups, strikes, protests, or even deteriorating relations
between countries may lead to problems in tourism development and attractiveness to tourists
(Cheng et al., 2016; Ingram et al., 2013). Diplomatic tensions have led to anti-Japanese sentiments
in China and anti-Chinese sentiments in Japan, resulting in negative impacts on bilateral tourism,
though generally short-lived (He, 2014; Maslow, 2016). Political crisis events, such as THAAD and
the Diaoyu Island dispute, have a greater impact on Chinese outbound tourism than other types of
crisis events (Jin et al. 2019). Israel—Palestinian violence has impacted the tourism industry and
changed Israel’s marketing strategy (Beirman 2002). Diplomatic disputes hurt bilateral tourist
flows between Korea and Japan (Kim & Prideaux, 2012). Political events such as the coup in Fiji
also caused concern in neighboring countries, which led to negative impacts between the two
countries and their tourist inflows (Hayward-Jones, 2009). The THAAD dispute affected the values
and beliefs of Chinese tourists, which harmed the Korean tourism market (Juana et al. 2017).
International relations and international tourism generally follow “trade follows the flag”,
whereby political relations between countries drive bilateral commerce activities between them
(e.g., Keshk et al., 2004), but there are exceptions. Chu et al. (2021) studied the impact of the
international relations/political relations index (PRI) on international tourism in the case of China,
and the results imply significant but short-lived impacts of political shocks on both outbound and
inbound tourism. Notably, the effect on outbound tourism lasts longer than that on inbound
tourism. The strongest effect on outbound tourism arises 1 month after the political shock, while
the effect on inbound tourism only shows up contemporaneously (in the current month) with
a much smaller magnitude. They also find that deteriorating political relations have no direct
Page 4 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
effect on tourist demand and that when accompanied by the issuance of travel warnings, negative
political shocks significantly reduce the willingness of tourists to travel to opposing countries. They
also found that government interference by issuing travel warnings is a dominating channel
through which political shocks affect China’s outbound tourism. Su et al. (2022) empirically
examined the two-way interaction between international relations and tourism demand using
time-series international relations index (PRI) capturing political/diplomatic relations between
countries from 1996–2017, and the findings suggest that country relations do affect tourist
flows, but not vice versa. This finding is consistent with the results of several other studies
(Davis & Meunier, 2011; Davis et al., 2019) that “trade follows the flag”. However, there are
exceptions, e.g., Stepchenkova and Shichkova (2017) found that relations between the United
States of America and Russia are strained due to the events in Ukraine, Crimea, and Donbas and
that the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Russia for almost a year, but Russian tourists say
they are very interested in vacationing in the United States of America, even though they strongly
disagree with the international policies of the United States of America.
The impact of political relations on international tourism is heterogeneous, multilateral, and

asymmetric. Although it is widely recognized that political conflicts harm tourism demand, this
effect may vary significantly across countries (Su et al., 2022). Zhou et al. (2021) found that China-
Japan political relations affect China-Korea tourism flows by studying the impact of political
relations on China-Japan-Korea multilateral tourism, but the impact of China-Korea political rela
tions on China-Japan tourism flows is not significant. They also observed asymmetries in the
political effects—the tourists respond more to negative political shocks than to positive ones,
and more to territorial disputes than to war history disputes.
Pearce and Stringer (1991) interpreted the connection between political relations and interna
tional tourism as a social psychological phenomenon. From this point of view, a large number of
studies have been generated to clarify the mechanism behind this connection ((Zhou et al., 2021)).
The first category was literature on the national image that is developed in international marketing
research. In these studies, it was assumed that political conflict portrayed an unfriendly destina
tion image, making it a less attractive travel option (Chen et al., 2016). Second, there were
viewpoints rooted in politics and concerned with nationalism. As a political ideology, nationalism
reflects people’s common belief in their own country, which may lead to people’s psychological
unwillingness to visit hostile countries because visitors may be regarded as “traitors” (Cheng &
Wong, 2014). Third, governments can use policy interventions to promote or hinder international
tourism to achieve certain political goals (Richter, 1983). For example, international relations affect
the inbound tourism of China and Japan through national goodwill. For tourists, both national
image and nationalism are related to subjective preferences, while government intervention is
related to the objective cost of tourism.
2.1.1. Deteriorating political relations create a negative country image that hinders
international tourism
The choice of international tourist destinations is influenced by the national image (Nadeau et al.,
2008), which is closely related to official political relations (Stepchenkova & Shichkova, 2016) and
unofficial stereotypes (Chen et al., 2016). The formation of international stereotypes is essentially
a reflection of political relations. International tourists initiate a cognitive process to determine
whether foreign countries pose a threat in terms of target compatibility, relative power, and cultural
status (Alexander et al., 1999, 2005). Depending on whether the political relationship is one of
cooperation or conflict, the national image can be changed from being regarded as an ally to an
enemy and then to a barbarian (Chen et al., 2016). Politicians set up information barriers about
foreign countries (Tasci et al., 2007). The state media can also publicize official attitudes and create
a negative or positive image of a country (Croteau & Hoynes, 2018). Once there is a biased national
image, the subjective evaluation of the country’s products becomes fundamentally distorted (Laroche
et al., 2005); this is especially true for tourism products (Nadeau et al., 2008; Podoshen & Hunt, 2011).
The national image represents how the country is perceived, while nationalism emphasizes the
Page 5 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
common beliefs of the country (Davis & Meunier, 2011). Logically speaking, without the consciousness
of “we”, there can be no concept of “foreigners”. Furthermore, the theory of culturalism considers
nationalism as a form of expression of national culture (Griffiths & Sharpley, 2012). Its goal is to
achieve population autonomy, unity, and identity (Smith, 2010).
Anderson’s (2014) Information Integration Theory (IIT) suggests that the risks perceived by
tourists will be weighed in their decision to travel or not to a destination. As a dynamic process
theory of cognition, IIT explains how thoughts and judgments are formed by integrating new
information to influence actions and behavior, and has been used in research on risk and insecurity
in tourism contexts (see Cruz- Milán et al., 2016; Schroeder et al., 2013). Based on IIT (Anderson,
2014), deteriorating political relations generate a negative image that has a detrimental impact on
intentions to visit the destinations (Tang et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2023). Isaac and Eid (2019) stated
that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli occupation of Palestine have affected the
tourism sector harmfully and left Palestine with a negative image, viewed in the media as a war
and terrorism zone.” The same can hold about north Cyprus, which is entangled due to the lack of
political resolution with the neighboring south that is exacerbated by constant negative portrayal
by the south tarnishing (Prayag, 2009; Yi et al., 2018) the image of the north (Christophorou et al.,
2010; Warner, 1999). Moreover, the international media played a decisive role for Fiji when it
broadcasted images of political violence in Fiji in 2000, which led to numerous countries issuing an
advisory to avoid traveling to Fiji. Many resorts became empty as tourists fled back home. It
tarnished the image of the Pacific internationally in addition to issuing a range of international
sanctions (Chand & Levantis, 2000). Furthermore, stereotypes due to political conflicts negatively
influence perceived destination quality, uniqueness, and image which in turn influence travel
intentions (Chen et al., 2016). Hostility can lead to the deterioration of destination image and
thus negatively affect destination travel intentions (Alvarez & Campo, 2020), e.g., the political
conflict has damaged Israel’s image and affected tourists’ travel intentions (Alvarez & Campo,
2014). As pointed out by Alvarez and Campo (2014), destination-to-destination hostility can have
a profound effect on the affective dimension of the destination image. Yu et al. (2020) explored the
impact of tourism boycotts by analyzing seven tourism boycotts that occurred in China over the
past decade, and the results suggest that politically hostile boycotts tend to have a lasting impact
on international tourism.
Using the leisure constraint model (Crawford & Godbey, 1987), researchers conducted empirical
studies to examine the impact of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints on tourist
behavior and destination image formation in a situation of political conflict or crisis (Chen et al.,
2013; Cheng et al., 2017). Complex political issues can elicit unique emotional and psychological
reactions based on an individual’s level of patriotism, community pride, and antagonism (Cheng
et al., 2017; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998b). Similarly, the sensitivity and complexity of the THAAD issues
increase the diversification and intensity of Chinese tourists’ opinions, ideas, and feelings. In
addition, Chinese tourists may differently perceive the importance of the THAAD issues depending
on their pre-established identity and attachment to the nation. Therefore, the subjectivity of
individuals is a key element in projecting how Chinese tourists perceive and respond to the issues
around THAAD, which will negatively impact their visit to Korea (Juana et al., 2017). In terms of
intrapersonal constraints, political instability produces negative destination images, leading to
a decline in the tourism industry (Canally & Timothy, 2007). Alvarez and Campo (2014) studied
Turkish tourists’ perception of Israel and their intention to visit before and after the Mavi Marmara
dispute between Israel and Turkey. Their study confirmed that the country’s image was formed
mainly by affective components, and the previously held animosity caused by political disputes
negatively affects the national image and tourism.
2.1.2. Deteriorating political relations impede international tourism by generating hostility

through statism
As a political ideology, nationalism reflects people’s shared beliefs about their own country, which
can cause psychological reluctance to visit a hostile country, as the visitors may be treated as
Page 6 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
“traitors” (Cheng & Wong, 2014). Yang et al. (2023) found a significant negative relationship
between political ideological distance and cross-border tourism. Political distance has
a significant positive impact on government tourism policies, and the further apart the two
countries are in terms of political ideology, the more likely the destination country is to impose
visa restrictions on tourists from the source country. However, the theory of constructivism takes
a more skeptical view and weakens the nationalism caused by elites’ manipulation of the public
(Deutsch, 1966). People are more sensitive to deteriorating relations than to improving ones
because “social nationalists” only respond to political conflicts, not to political consistency.
Political tensions among countries may arouse nationalist sentiment among citizens (Bertoli,
2017). Consumer ethnocentrism and animosity negatively influence the intention to visit through
a deteriorating destination and country image (Stepchenkova et al., 2018). Chen et al. (2013)
examined how Chinese nationalism served as intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints that
affected the Chinese outbound tourism market. Cheng et al. (2017) found that political events,
such as the Diaoyu Islands dispute, catalyzed nationalistic sentiments among the Chinese popula
tion, which in turn affected short-term travel intentions, and that in the long run, this effect would
disappear.
Stepchenkova et al. (2018) showed that tourists’ willingness to visit a destination is influenced by
individuals’ animosity towards that country in the case of strained bilateral relations. In particular,
animosity negatively influenced Russian respondents’ perceptions of the U.S.A. as a tourism
destination and their intentions to visit. Political disruptions between countries create uncertainty
and hostility. Uncertainty reduces economic activities, such as trade and tourism, and hostility
increases transaction costs or the chance of unfair treatment (Quintal et al., 2010). Guo et al., 2016
findings showed that animosity adversely affected young Chinese tourists’ willingness to visit
Japan. Sánchez et al. (2018) argued that various types of animosity could influence tourists’ travel
intentions differently; specifically, political animosity and social animosity were negatively related
to visit intention. Campo and Alvarez (2017) also conducted similar research in Spain and reported
that animosity was negatively related to individuals’ visit intentions. Abraham and Poria (2019)
found that animosity decreases the willingness to visit a destination, learn about the culture, and
socially visible consumption. Kim (2019) argues that hostility and perceptions of political disputes
between China and South Korea guide Chinese diners to choose non-Korean restaurants. General
animosity, country image, and bilateral relation variables affect Chinese tourists’ willingness to
travel to South Korea with the existence of the THAAD dispute (Stepchenkova et al., 2020). Yu et al.
(2020) demonstrated that boycotts induced by non-political animosity have led to a sudden plunge
in visitor numbers, while boycotts induced by political animosity have an enduring detrimental
effect. Their findings also suggest that institutional intervention may worsen the effects of tourism
boycotts. Additionally, political conflict impacts international trade not only through trade policy
but also through consumer boycotts. The political conflict between Japan and South Korea has
caused the relationship between the two countries to oscillate between friendly and controversial.
It has resulted in Korean consumers boycotting purchases of Japanese products and services,
including travel to Japan (Ahn et al., 2022).
2.1.3. Governments use tourism policy interventions to promote or discourage international

tourism
It is not uncommon for the government to control outbound tourism to achieve political goals. The
most frequent government intervention is to issue travel security alerts or information about
politically hostile countries. In addition to direct restrictions on destinations, the government can
also indirectly affect travel costs by implementing time-consuming document requirements, for
eign exchange controls (Hall, 1994; Jørgensen et al., 2020), and transportation restrictions (Jin
et al., 2019).
The political tensions pose threats to travelers’ safety, making it an obstacle to developing
tourism (Morakabati, 2012). The government may also intervene in the tourism market through
Page 7 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
the operation of government-controlled channels—tourism policy when political tensions escalate

(Lim et al., 2020), such as stricter visa policies. While a government has various methods, e.g.,
reducing the issuance of visas, border control, etc., to restrict inbound tourism, it is difficult to
impose restrictions on outbound tourism since citizens are free to travel abroad. One usual way is
to issue travel advice or travel warnings. Although most of the advice is routinely issued to inform
the citizens of potential threats abroad, considerable evidence suggests the abuse of travel advice
by tourism-generating countries to realize their political motivation (Bianchi, 2006; Deep &
Johnston, 2017; Oded, 2007; Sharpley et al., 1996), such as travel warnings, which have an impact
on Chinese outbound tourism (Chu et al., 2021). This is because potential tourists may not pay
attention to international relations news unless political shocks gain sufficient media visibility
(Semetko et al., 1992), but consumers’ reactions to shocks are quite different when authorities
issue travel warnings, which are effective in arousing consumers’ attention to political shocks and
perceive political tensions as a risk (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a). Thus, issuing
travel warnings can be effective in drawing consumers’ attention (Bianchi, 2006), who become
aware of the potential risks of travel and change their destination preferences.
In Jordan, which is often in the midst of conflicts and crises in the modern Middle East, the
implementation by representatives of the tourism industry of “sanitization” procedures aimed at
eliminating dangers and conflicts in tourist sites has led to international tourists also downplaying
the perception of violence and traveling to the region despite the conflicts (Buda, 2016). Prideaux
and Kim (2018) found that tourism protocols could be a mechanism to reduce travel barriers
between countries in political conflict or a post-conflict era. Stepchenkova et al. (2019) argue that
destination advertising may change perceptions of country values and attitudes in the context of
strained bilateral relations. Political tensions ranging from mild to moderate are usually short-
lived, lasting a few months at most (Du et al., 2017), e.g., the U.S.A. has been constantly criticizing
China on political issues such as human rights (Drury & Li, 2006; Zhou, 2005), and China has often
expressed its displeasure with such criticisms, which triggers a temporary deterioration in U.S.
A-China political relations. However, political dialog and economic cooperation soon diluted these
disputes. Farhangi and Alipour (2021) highlighted the role and effectiveness of social media plat
forms in disseminating information, affecting the perception of tourists, and promoting the real
image of destinations that are challenged by the political impasse.
Most studies focus on the negative aspects (conflicts) of political relations (Su et al., 2020), such
as the negative impact of crisis events on the two-way tourism flow between China and the United
States (Wang et al., 2009). The deterioration of international relations has an inhibitory effect on
inbound tourism. However, good international relations can promote inbound tourism. For exam
ple, Personal interests and institutional factors (political and commercial interests) are driving
forces behind the increase in Chinese visitors to Africa(Chen and Duggan 2016). In contrast, our
measurements cover the entire range (positive and negative numbers), which enables us to
capture the asymmetric effect of political relations of different symbols from experience. Only
a few empirical studies have focused on the impact of changing international relations on inbound
tourism, except Chu et al. (2021), which have all used time-series data based on two or three
countries and lacked the support of empirical panel data studies. Based on this, the following
assumption is proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Good international relations have a positive impact on inbound tourism.
2.2. The influence of geopolitical risk (GPR) on inbound tourism

Geopolitical risk is another important factor affecting international tourism that stimulates
researchers’ interest, unlike international relations. Geopolitical theory and international relations
theory share the concepts of power, international system, and constructs, but there are obvious
differences between the division of power, the characteristics of the international system, and the
content of the constructs (Hu et al., 2021). The strategic security of a country does not depend on
Page 8 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
its geography but on its relationship with other countries and its relative power (Yan, 2019). Hu
(2022) argues that if geography is taken as the fundamental starting point for analyzing interna
tional relations and national strategy, it negates the decisive role of human beings in international
relations and the formulation of foreign strategy.
Rogers et al. (2013) state that the media often refer to geopolitical concerns to describe the
impact of international crises and international violence. Accordingly, Caldara and Iacoviello
(2022) define geopolitical risk as the threat, realization, and escalation of adverse events asso
ciated with wars, terrorism, and any tensions among states and political factors that affect the
peaceful course of international relations. The definition of geopolitical builds on the historical
usage of the term—to describe the practice of states to control and compete for territory (Flint,
2016). The definition of geopolitical risk captures a wide range of adverse geopolitical events, from
their threat, to their realization, to their escalation. Nguyen et al. (2023) argue that geopolitical
conflicts have two key characteristics. First, it is persistent and not easy to resolve because the
causes of conflict are geographic values that are among the national and collective interests.
Second, resolving geopolitical conflict requires goodwill, cooperative behavior, friendly relations,
and trust between states involved in the conflict (Mojtahedzadeh, 2000) and full respect and
compliance with international principles and laws on the sovereignty of other states. Therefore,
geopolitical events become long-term threats and risks of escalation.
Geopolitical risk refers to the risk and uncertainty of tension among countries that affect the
peace process and the normalization of international relations. The Global Risk Report 2020 from
the Davos World Economic Forum noted that geopolitical risk ranked first among the risk factors
restricting global development. Geopolitical risk is not only a stage issue but also a long-term
phenomenon. The networking and complexity of geopolitical relations make inbound tourism not
only an economic event but also one that is related to various geopolitical risks, such as regime
change, international cooperation, and terrorism.
Caldara and Iacoviello (2018) showed that news stories characterized by geopolitical conflicts
contain information about geopolitical risks. Geopolitical conflicts mainly include wars, terrorist
acts, racialism, and political violence and tensions. Geopolitical risk (GPR) is a global phenomenon,
that continues to cascade from one country to another. Over the last couple of decades, several
geopolitical events, such as the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.A., the Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq invasion, the
Ukraine/Russia crisis, the 2015 Paris terror attacks, the ongoing escalation of the Syrian conflict,
the U.S.-North Korea tensions over nuclear proliferation, the Qatar-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, the
U.S.’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S.’s cancellation of Iran’s nuclear deal, and,
most recently, the killing of an Iranian commander by the U.S. and the prompt Iranian revenge,
have occurred that have led to escalated GPR on a global scale, posing a wide range of threats to
the tourism sector around the world. Information about internal or regional conflicts can quickly
spill over national boundaries and affect individual decision-making. Therefore, the increase in
geopolitical risk in a region may reduce the capital and labor from or to these regions. The tourism
demand in these areas will be more affected by geopolitical risks. If the geopolitical risk of the
destination increases, tourists may find other destinations or postpone their travel plans.
Researchers have shown continuous interest in studying the effects of geopolitical risks since the
9–11 attacks, which influenced the global economy and many industries, particularly the tourism
industry, in the world. The earlier studies seem to interpret and measure geopolitical risks in
a somewhat arbitrary way. Each of them arbitrarily captures a narrow subset of geopolitics risks
while there is a full spectrum (Demiralay & Kilincarslan, 2019). There has been no consensus on
how to measure geopolitical risks until Caldara and Iacoviello (2019). They employ a text-search
algorithm to count the number of occurrences of a word string consisting of war, terrorism,
military, geopolitics, and such in articles published in leading national and international news
papers to construct an index of GPR. The index is allowed to change with the updates of news
papers and choices of “keywords,” but the underlying logic stays intact as long as the algorithm is
Page 9 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
the same. This method provides flexibility, stability, and a fairly comprehensive picture. It has been
spread quickly and adopted by researchers to cover a broader spectrum of geopolitics (Balli et al.,
2019; Bilgin et al., 2020; Demiralay & Kilincarslan, 2019; Tiwari et al., 2019).
In the tourism literature, most of the studies focus on the adverse effects of geopolitical risks on
inbound tourism, such as visits or revenues from the tourism sector (Demir et al., 2019), the
number of tourist arrivals (Tiwari et al., 2019), and the tourism receipts (Alola et al., 2019).
Geopolitical risks such as war, military-related tension, and nuclear threats contribute to
a decrease in tourist arrivals and demand (Demir et al., 2019; Tiwari et al., 2019). The rise in
geopolitical risks increases the concerns of personal security and stability which cause postpone
ment or cancellation of travel plans. Travelers will not be willing to visit a country during times of
higher geopolitical risks. This will not only lead to a decrease in the number of arriving tourists but
also a decrease in tourism expenditures. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the Syrian and
Iraq war demonstrate how badly geopolitical tensions can affect tourism demand and the regional
travel economy (Farmaki, 2017; Mehmood et al., 2016; Sharpley, 2003). Seddighi et al. (2001) also
confirm that political risks and terrorist attacks have led to a decrease in tourist arrivals in some
destinations.
Related scholars study the negative impact of terrorist attacks—a subset of geopolitical events
—on international tourism. Alsarayreh et al. (2010) employed questionnaire techniques and
explored the impacts of terrorism on tourism inbound within 42 countries. The respondents mostly
believed terrorism to have diminished international tourism activities. Bac et al. (2015) investi
gated the relationship between tourism and terrorism in the U.S. travel market and also concluded
that tourism is deeply affected by terrorism. Samitas et al. (2018) investigated the role of political
risk and terrorism on tourism inflows in Greece from 1977 to 2012, and the results confirmed the
negative impact of terrorism on tourism inflows to Greece, with a unidirectional causality from
terror to tourism in the short run. Fourie et al. (2020) have shown that the multiplier effect of
tourism is diminishing in terms of travelers’ risk perceptions of terrorism and insecurity at the
destination. Walters et al. (2019) reported that hotel occupancy levels, restaurant takings, airline
passenger numbers, and retail revenues all decline when there are terrorism and other security
concerns. In addition, security threats have negative effects on prospective tourists’ perceptions of
the comfort, safety, and leisure choices of a destination country (Li et al., 2021). Akamavi et al.
(2022) find that security threat indices have significant negative impacts on tourist receipts, but
they also contribute positively to employment, leisure expenditure, and tourist arrivals.
Some scholars study the negative impact of political instability on international tourism. Saha
and Yap (2014) utilized panel data estimation and studied the effects of political instability on
tourism in 139 countries from 1999 to 2009. Political instability was concluded to negatively affect
tourism at any terrorist threat level. Saha and Yap (2014) obtain that the impact of political unrest
on tourism is much greater than a single incident such as assassinations and terrorist attacks,
especially if this goes on for a long time. Gozgor et al. (2017) found that military in politics had
a significant negative impact on tourism inflows in Turkey, where a 1% decrease in the military-
political index led to an increase of about 7% in tourism flows in Turkey. Ghalia et al. (2019)
employed a gravity model to the impacts of political risks, institutional quality, distance, and socio-
economic factors on tourist inbound for the top 34 destination countries from 2005 to 2014, and
they found that institutional quality and absence of conflict are significant factors in tourism
inflows and that lower levels of political risk in the destination countries contribute to increasing
tourism flows. The result of the study by Kundra et al. (2021)showed that the main reason for the
decline in ecotourism in Abaka Tourist Park in Fiji was the uncertain tenure of non-democratic
unelected governments and political coups, on the other hand, political instability had a huge
negative impact on Fiji’s tourism industry, especially the ecotourism industry and consequently
delayed the growth of the economy during the recovery period after the coup. Tomczewska-
Popowycz and Quirini-Popławski (2021) found that political instability reduces tourism flows in
the short term, and cities with developed tourism sectors in areas away from the place of conflict
Page 10 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
are beneficiaries of political instability, cities that are underdeveloped in terms of tourism did not
experience a significant impact of the political instability in eastern Ukraine. A study by Tiwari et al.
(2019) empirically found that events in India related to political instability appeared to have
negative impacts on international tourist arrivals, especially in the long term. The exception is
that political instability may also be beneficial to tourism, as Navickas et al. (2022) found that
political stability in destination countries resulted in higher tourist flows and additional revenues
for accommodation, food and beverage, transportation, and other service providers.
Some scholars choose geopolitical risk events to analyze their negative impacts on international
tourism. The deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system by the United
States of America affects international tourist arrivals to China. Evolving sensitive geopolitical
pressures facing China and Taiwan may deeply threaten travel industry performance (Gillen &
Mostafanezhad, 2019; Lim, 2012). Balli et al. (2019) have reported that, while geopolitical risk
factors adversely affected tourism demand in some countries, others remain unaffected by the risk
of a geopolitical power play. Furthermore, substantial geopolitical tensions, political turmoil, recent
coup de tats, and rising and ongoing terrorism attacks in the Sahel region present evolving real
security threats to travel and tourism industry performance in West Africa, East Africa, and
surrounding regions (Benedikter & Ouedraogo, 2019; Dowd & Raleigh, 2013; Gaibulloev &
Sandler, 2011). Ivanov et al. (2016) and Webster et al. (2017) noted that events such as the
annexation of Crimea and the civil war in eastern Ukraine have unequivocally negatively affected
the tourism industry in Ukraine and Crimea. In a study by Saint Akadiri et al. (2019) conducted in
Turkey, the findings demonstrated that both tourism development and economic growth are
reduced during periods with high levels of geopolitical risk. Tensions on the Sino-Indian border
have had a negative impact on tourism in Ladakh, Manali, and Lahaul-Spiti—major tourist destina
tions in India—where tourists could not enter the region (Gettleman et al., 2021). Recently, Parkin
and Ratnaweera (2022) have argued that the current Russia-Ukraine war has a severe fallout with
an unwelcome twist, which causes a huge economic disruption and an austere effect on travel
services. Koch (2022) also conveys that this war affects the travel industry (e.g., airlines, cruises)
with longer routes and distances, and greater fuel costs.
Recently, some researchers have empirically analyzed the impact of geopolitical risk on inter
national tourism using the GPR index developed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2018). Demir et al.
(2019) utilized panel data fixed-effects methods to analyze the impact of GPRs on tourism arrivals
in 18 countries for the period from 1995 to 2016. As the first research in the literature, they used
a GPR index and found that GPR has a significant negative impact on international tourism, and it
is the most significant factor in tourism development. Demir et al. (2020), in the case of Turkey,
employed the NARDL model to examine the asymmetric impact of GPRs on tourist inflows from
January 1990 to December 2018 and used monthly data based on the GPR, which was developed
by Caldara and Iacoviello (2018). They found an asymmetric and significant effect of the GPR in the
short run where an increase in GPR reduces tourist arrivals; meanwhile, a decrease in GPR has no
effect in the short run. Moreover, they could not confirm evidence of asymmetry for variables in the
long run. Kazakova and Kim (2021) used wavelet analysis to examine whether arrivals from
neighboring tourism source countries (i.e., China and Japan) are influenced by geopolitical events
and economic volatilities in South Korea. The results show that tourists are adversely affected by
external events such as geopolitical risks that most geopolitical events have short- and medium-
term impacts ranging from three months to one year, and that South Korea’s inbound tourism
industry is not significantly affected by geopolitical shocks in the long run. Wang et al. (2022) used
sample data from 10 neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region for the period 1996–2018 to
analyze the spatial spillovers of the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) on inbound tourism using
a spatial Durbin model, and the results of the study showed that geopolitical risk led to fewer
tourists, but geopolitical risk in neighboring countries led to more domestic tourists.
On the contrary, some scholars have argued that terrorism does not always harm tourism
(Morakabati & Beavis, 2017; Yaya, 2009). While the sense of fear and risk can devastate tourists,
Page 11 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
it has also been noted that places that occasionally experience horrific atrocities or natural
disasters can become attractive places to visit, a phenomenon known as “dark tourism”
(Korstanje & Clayton, 2012). Saha and Yap (2014) reveal that due to the innate curiosity of people,
tourism demand tends to increase to a threshold following a terrorist event in countries with low
to moderate political risk. Studies by Morakabati (2013), Ranga and Pradhan (2014), and Tekin
(2015) have shown that the number of tourists is increasing in the long run despite instability
(Middle East) or acts of terrorism (India, Turkey). Research by Ingram et al. (2013) on the relation
ship between tourism and political instabilities, including terrorism in Thailand, showed that
although there was a negative depiction of Thailand in the media, it still proved to possess quite
a strong and favorable image for foreign tourists. Such results may be interpreted as meaning that
despite the high levels of political instability of a destination, people still might be willing to risk it
and go because of cheap airfares and accommodation (Tiwari et al., 2019). This is congruent with
the findings of Ingram et al. (2013) who suggested that such holidays amid unstable political
situations are likely to be undertaken by less-risk-averse tourists. In response to the severe
reduction of international tourists due to the 1987, 2000, and 2006 coups, the Tourism Action
Group (TAG) as an attempt to resurrect the image of Fiji as a “Pacific Paradise” in the face of this
political turmoil (Trnka, 2008) was commendable. However, the concept of dark tourism does not
apply to small island states like Fiji.
In addition, some scholars have also found that geopolitical risk and international tourism do
not have a stable relationship or have a negligible impact. Fletcher and Morakabati (2008) explore
the impact of terrorism and political instability on tourism flows in Kenya and Fiji. They do not
derive a stable link. Balli et al. (2019) show that geopolitical risk has a negligible impact on the
demand for international tourism in popular destination countries.
Research on the impact of geopolitical risks on inbound tourism mainly focuses on the deteriora
tion of bilateral relations caused by isolated events, which in turn affects the flow of bilateral
tourism (Kim et al., 2016). Although the rise in a country’s level of geopolitical risk significantly
inhibits inbound tourism (Balli et al., 2019), there are few empirical analyses of multiple countries
in the literature. Demir et al. (2019) discovered that geopolitical risks have a negative impact on
inbound tourism. Balli et al. (2019) empirically studied the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) on the
international tourism demand of emerging economies. Based on this, the following assumption is
proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Geopolitical risks have a negative impact on inbound tourism.
2.3. The moderating role of geopolitical risk in the impact of international relations on
inbound tourism
Geopolitics highlights the strategic impact of geographical space on international political rela
tions. It is a realistic state in which factors of cross-national territorial boundaries have an impact
on a country’s internal affairs and foreign policies. Such a realistic state of sovereign indepen
dence, territorial integrity, economic development, and social stability exists objectively and can be
subjectively recognized by the country and its people. The factors leading to geopolitical risks can
be summarized as conflicting regional democratic and national agendas, regional territorial con
flicts, and great power games. The outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, Britain’s exit from the European
Union, India-Pakistan tensions, U.S.-Iranian tensions, and U.S.-China trade frictions in recent years
are all geopolitical risk events. These events will, to a greater or lesser extent, cast a shadow on the
development prospects of the global economy and local regional economies. Therefore, geopoli
tical risks are international crises and violent impacts brought about by the geographic location
factors of a country from a global macro perspective involving multiple countries, transcending the
bilateral political relations between two countries. For example, THAAD is a delicate and sensitive
issue that involves the complex political dynamics of many neighboring countries (e.g., South
Korea, North Korea, China, the United States, Russia, and Japan).
Page 12 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
The global geopolitical risk index constructed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2018) reflects not only
terrorist acts and threats, but also takes into account the risk of war, nuclear threats, and military-
related tensions, representing a range of exogenous global uncertainties (Balcilar et al., 2018). This
exogenous global uncertainty affects inbound tourism at the same time that it moderates the
impact of international relations on inbound tourism according to landscape theory in cooperative
game theory. The new geopolitical phenomenon represented by “switching camp behavior”
reflects the fact that state behavior is closely related to relational contextual factors such as the
strategic environment faced by the state (Zeng & Zhang, 2023), and that participants in the game
have a tendency to be either allied or hostile, and that they try to minimize their frustration as
much as possible, which is measured by the degree of willingness of a given pattern in meeting the
given country’s desire to cooperate or confront other countries, the degree of willingness affects
the relationship between international relations and international tourism, that is, to regulate their
relationship.
The literature focusing on geopolitical risk as a moderating variable is relatively small, e.g.,
Bülbüloğlu (2022) reports that Turkey’s tourism industry is expected to lose 30% due to the Russia-
Ukraine war. This is because Russia and Ukraine are important sources of tourism for Turkey.
Tensions between the United States and Russia over events in Ukraine, Crimea, and the Donbas,
and nearly a year of economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States, but Russian
tourists say they are very interested in vacationing in the United States despite their strong
opposition to U.S. international policy (Stepchenkova & Shichkova, 2017). China, Japan, and
South Korea are some of the most important geopolitical relationships in the world, and geopo
litical conflict between China and Japan, affects tourism flows from China to South Korea, but the
political relationship between China and South Korea does not have a significant effect on tourism
flows between China and Japan (Zhou et al., 2021). Wang et al. (2022) study using 10 neighboring
countries over the period 1996–2018 shows that domestic geopolitical and epidemic risks lead to
a decrease in tourist arrivals, but geopolitical risks in neighboring countries lead to more domestic
tourists.
There is also some literature on geopolitical risks in other countries that have led to an increase
in international tourist arrivals in another countries. For example, when Fiji was subjected to two
military coups in 1987, this violence benefited the Solomon Islands and North Queensland, who
promoted themselves as safe regional alternatives to tourism (Hall & O’Sullivan, 1996). The 9/11
terrorist attacks in the United States had a positive impact on Fiji’s shaky tourism image and made
it a haven of tranquility (King & Berno, 2006).
Geopolitical risks hinder the development of inbound tourism and reflect the vulnerability of
inbound tourism. The World Economic Outlook (2017) released by the International Monetary Fund
emphasized that geopolitical uncertainty was a prominent factor affecting global economic devel
opment. Geopolitical risk is one of the important factors affecting the development of inbound
tourism. Various military and diplomatic relations affect tourism management departments’ for
mulation of exit and entry policies, tourists’ destination choices, and the supply of international
tourism. Geopolitical risks are the risks of tension between countries that are caused by geopoli
tical conflicts (Liu, 2021). The objective existence of geopolitical risks has caused subtle changes in
complex international relations, such as the game of great powers and religious conflicts. The
changes in international relations are manifested in international cooperation and confrontation.
Stereotypes publicized by the national media and information barriers established by politicians
are perceived by residents, forming hostility or goodwill among residents and thus affecting
inbound tourism. Based on this, the following assumption is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Geopolitical risks play a negative role in moderating the positive impact of
international relations on inbound tourism. The higher the geopolitical risks are, the weaker the
positive impact of international relations on inbound tourism.
Page 13 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
The hypothetical relationship between international relations, geopolitical risks, and inbound
tourism is shown in Figure 1.
3. Data and methodology

The following focuses on the models, data, and methods used to discover the impact of interna
tional relations on inbound tourism under different geopolitical risk levels.
3.1. Data source

The variables used in the study include explained variables, main explanatory variables, and
control variables. The description of variables in the measurement model is shown in Table 1.
The explained variable is the number of inbound tourists. The data are from the National Bureau of
Statistics.
There are two main explanatory variables: international relations and geopolitical risks. The
variable of international relations adopts the value of Sino-foreign bilateral relationships between
China and other countries from the Database of China’s Relations with Major Powers published by
Tsinghua University. The geopolitical risk variable refers to the GPR index constructed by Caldara
and Iacoviello (2018).
Bilateral relations between countries are manifested by bilateral national events, so the event
data analysis method has become the basic method of quantitative measurement of bilateral
relations between countries, which was born in the 1960s, through the decomposition of complex
political behaviors into a series of constituent units, such as mutual visits, cooperation, protests,
threats, wars, etc., and then assigning values to the events to calculate and analyze (Yan & Zhou,
2004). The representative models of event analysis include: Edward Azar’s “Conflict and Peace
Dataset”, Charles McClelland’s “World Events Interaction Measurement”, Yan et al. constructed an
“event influence” model, etc.
In this study, we use a particular measure of China’s political relations with other countries, the
international relation (IR) index, The international relation index is the value of China’s Sino-foreign
bilateral relations from the “Database of China’s Relations with Major Powers” published by
Tsinghua University. This index quantifies the overall level of bilateral relations between China
and major partner countries. We use data on the value of China’s bilateral relations with 10 major
partnership countries (Australia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, South Korea,
the United Kingdom, and the United States of America) for the period from 1999 to 2018. This
index synthesizes reports and information related to bilateral political events from Renmin Ribao
(People’s Daily) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. These events
include all political events of varying magnitudes, such as military conflicts, diplomatic events,
territory disputes, etc. Each of these events are assigned a score according to its severity and
influence on bilateral relation. Official visits and meetings are assigned positive scores. For exam
ple, it assigns 1.5 points to a country whose national leaders visit China. Bilateral meetings
between China and government heads of a country are assigned 0.8 points. Depending on the
context, statements and other diplomatic events can be either positive or negative. It assigns 0.1
points for opening a new consulate while closing a consulate is assigned − 0.1 points. All the scores
are amassed each month and converted into the political relation index within a uniform scale.
The international relations index (IR) between China and a foreign country are then summarized
by this uniform scale ranging from 9 (most friendly) to − 9 (most confrontational). Although this
index takes on a continuous value between − 9 and 9, it can be divided into six categories
according to its value: confrontational (−9 to − 6), tense (−6 to − 3), bad (−3 to 0), normal (0
to 3), good (3 to 6), and friendly (6 to 9). Each category consists of three levels: low, medium,
and high. These levels correspond to the magnitude of the absolute value of PRI within each
category (see Figure 2).
Page 14 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Figure 1. Conceptual model

diagram.
Figure 2. The spectrum of

international relation index.
This study uses the GPR index developed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2022) to quantitatively
capture the impact of geopolitical risks on tourism. The GPR index is used to calculate the number
of times articles related to geopolitical tensions appear in newspapers. The index is based on text
searches for keywords, which can be divided into six categories: geopolitical threats, nuclear
threats, war threats, terrorist threats, acts of war, and acts of terrorism.
The econometric model will create the “endogenous problem” if the model omits some impor
tant variables according to the econometric theory. The paper uses the following control variables:
resource endowment, openness level, relative prices, distance factor, and the population of tourist
source countries.
The resource endowment variable is measured by the number of World Heritage sites, including
World Natural Heritage, World Cultural Heritage, and World Natural and Cultural Heritage sites.
Because there is a positive correlation between heritage sites and inbound tourism (Su & Lin,
2014).
Openness level is the main indicator of the degree of openness of a country or region’s economy.
Openness level has a significant positive effect on economic growth (Edwards, 1998; Lloyd &
Maclaren, 2002). In recent years, it has been applied to international tourism research and has
had a positive impact on inbound tourism. Openness level variable uses foreign direct investment
(FDI) as a proxy variable, FDI including the sum of net inflows and net outflows, and the data come
from the WDI database of the World Bank.
Exchange rates are commonly used in tourism demand modeling (Broda, 2006; Dritsakis &
Gialetaki, 2004; Quadri & Zheng, 2010), and have strong explanatory power for international tourist
flows (Santanagallego et al., 2010). Exchange rate movements change the relative price of
a country’s inbound tourism products, and the depreciation of a country’s currency makes inbound
tourism relatively cheaper, which may increase inbound tourism flows; conversely, it decreases
inbound tourism flows (Broda, 2006). The common practice in tourism demand studies is to
combine the exchange rate with relative prices to form a real exchange rate or to use the nominal
exchange rate alone (Vita & Kyaw, 2013). In practice, when choosing a destination, potential
tourists often convert the price of the destination to their currency according to the nominal
exchange rate to measure the cost of traveling to the destination, in addition, because the
exchange rate of the RMB is relatively stable and less volatile, we choose the rate of change of
the exchange rate to amplify the effect of the exchange rate. So, this paper uses the change rate
of the RMB exchange rate as a proxy variable for relative price. Relative prices are based on the
International Financial Statistics (IFS) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Page 15 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Table 1. Description of variables in the measurement models

Variable Type Variable Name Variable Symbol Metering Method
inbound tourism inbound tourist arrivals IT (International Tourist logarithm of inbound
Arrivals) tourist arrivals
international relations international relations IR (International international relations
index Relations)
geopolitical risk geopolitical risk index GPR (Geopolitical risks) geopolitical risk
resource endowment abundance of tourism WHS (World Heritage Site) number of World Natural
resources Heritage, World Cultural
Heritage, and World
Natural and Cultural
Heritage sites
openness level foreign direct investment FDI (Foreign Direct logarithm of total inflow
Investment) and outflow of foreign
direct investment
relative price change rate of the ROE (rate of exchange) change rate of the RMB
exchange rate exchange rate
distance factor distance cost DC (Distance cost) logarithm of the product
of geographical distance
and international oil price
population of tourist population of tourist POP (Total population of logarithm of the
source countries source countries tourist-guest sources) population of tourist
source countries
Distance factor, distance measures the distance cost of inbound tourism. According to the law of
spatial attenuation, the farther the geographical distance is, the smaller the number of inbound
tourists. The geographic distance data are from the Gravity database of CEPII, and the population-
weighted geographic distance index between the two main cities of both sides is adopted.
Distance factor is often used as an impediment to tourism in both classical and extended models
of tourism gravity. Edwards and Dennis (1976) advocates the following formula for measuring
distance: Dij = dij × h × r, where dij is the spatial straight-line distance from destination i to source j;
h is the fuel consumption per kilometer of an airplane flight; and r is the price of jet fuel in
a calendar year. Additionally, geographic distance is a constant and cannot be applied to the fixed
effect model, because estimating a gravity model with fixed effects treats distance as an individual
fixed effect and thus unrecognizable, based on the method of Jiang and Zhang (2011), using the
product of geographic distance and international oil prices to express the cost of distance. So
geographic distance is weighted by the international oil price in the EIA database to change it into
a quantity that changes with time.
Domestic and international empirical studies on inbound tourism usually use the population of
the source country as one of the conventional control variables and as a proxy variable affecting
the demand for outbound tourism (Eilat & Einav, 2004; Gil-Pareja et al., 2007; Su & Lin, 2014; Vita,
2014). This paper also follows the convention of using the population of the source country as
a control variable. The population data of the tourist source countries are from the WDI database
of the World Bank.
The panel data is from 1999 to 2018. The selected China’s main source countries including
Australia, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and
the United States of America, to examine the impact of international relations and geopolitical risk
on inbound tourism and the moderating effect of geopolitical risk on international relations
affecting inbound tourism.
The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between the main
variables and the results are shown in Table 2. It is reasonable that the correlations between
Page 16 of 30
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables in econometric models
Variables Mean Standard IR GPR WHS lnFDI ROE lnDC lnPOP

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
deviation
lnIT 4.4447 0.9315
IR 4.3164 2.6851 1
GPR 104.3524 19.1924 −0.1308* 1
WHS 37.95 9.0085 0.1056 0.0703 1
lnFDI 10.8499 1.8158 −0.555*** 0.0209 0.0131 1
ROE 1.7187 9.5802 0.0945 −0.0134 0.0753 −0.1101 1
lnDC 12.6825 0.8636 0.1441** −0.305** −0.296*** −0.3898*** −0.0439 1
lnPOP 18.5914 1.0702 −0.280*** 0.0008 0.036 −0.0984 0.1111 −0.0287 1
Note: ***, **, and * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Page 17 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
the variables are as expected. Meanwhile, the variance inflation factor test was performed on the
variables, and the VIF values were less than 2.5, which can exclude multicollinearity issue.
There are several reasons why we focus on China. As one of the world’s leading economies,
China has maintained a prolonged period of high economic growth. The tourism industry also
experiences a dramatic expansion. The number of outbound tourists grew by 16% annually, on
average, from 2000 to 2018. China has become the largest source country for outbound tourism
since 2012 (UNWTO, 2019). During the same period, the number of inbound tourists to China also
tripled. At the same time, however, China has constantly experienced political disputes with some
of the major powers. Take China’s relations with Japan as an example. In the past few decades,
China and Japan have disputed many issues, such as recognition of war crimes, Diaoyu (Senkaku)
island, Japanese-American Security Cooperation, etc. Variations in political relations caused by
these frequent disputes allow us to identify political shocks’ effects on tourism. Moreover, Tsinghua
University Released the Database of China’s Relations with Major Powers, which proposed China’s
international relations index (IR) with several major countries at an annual frequency. The data set
makes our quantitative analysis practical.
These 10 major sources for China were selected by taking into account both international relations
data and inbound tourism data. The total number of international tourism arrivals to China from these
10 countries in 2019 was 15,698 thousand, accounting for 33% of the total number of inbound tourism
arrivals excluding arrivals from Hong Kong, China, Macao, China, and Taiwan Province of China.
3.2. Model selection

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of international relations on inbound
tourism under different geopolitical risk levels. Quantitative analyses were mainly conducted using
gravitational modeling. The gravitational model, derived from Newton’s law of gravity, was first
used in the study of international trade and has the following basic form:
where Fij denotes the trade flow between regions i and j; GDP denotes the gross domestic product
of regions i and j; Dij denotes the distance between regions i and j; Uij denotes the residual term;
and B, α, λ, ξ denote the parameters to be estimated. For estimation purposes, the above equation
is usually converted to the following logarithmic form.
Where εij denotes a zero mean; the variance is a constant random disturbance term, E(εij) = 0, β = log(B).
Crampon proposed a typical tourism gravity model by replacing “trade flows” with “tourism flows”.
Where Tij is the tourism flow from source i to destination j; Pi is the population size of the source; Aj
is the attractiveness of destination j; Dij is the distance from source i to destination j. The model
has been adapted by adding and subtracting variables. Later on, some scholars continuously made
adaptive adjustments to the model by adding or subtracting variables based on the model.
Since international tourism is a form of international trade, the gravity model is adopted to study
the tourist flows. Early authors (e.g., Isard, 1954; Tinbergen, 1962), Linnemann (1966), etc.)
proposed that bilateral trade flows increase in economic size and decrease in distance between
two regions. The model turns out a great empirical success in predicting international trade flows.
Eichengreen and Irwin (1998) called it the “workhorse for empirical studies of international trade.”
Besides, many other authors extend the applications of the gravity model to study other bilateral
Page 18 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
flows, such as migration, remittance, direct foreign investment, etc. It also gets popularity in
tourism research (Fourie et al., 2020; Khadaroo & Seetanah, 2008; Morley et al., 2014;
Santeramo & Morelli, 2016).
First, the panel data model is used to examine the impact of international relations and
geopolitical risks on inbound tourism. Based on the tourism gravity model, the model is set as
follows:
In Formula (1), i represents the serial number of tourist source countries, and the values of i are 1,
2, 3. . ., 10. j represents the serial number of tourist destinations. t represents the time, which is
1999, 2000. . ., 2018. ITijt represents the explained variable, that is, the number of tourists from 10
source countries, such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Germany, who visit
China. μi is the error term. In addition, μi = εi +hit. εi represents the error term generated by
individual heterogeneity. hit represents an unobserved variable that does not change over time
and has an impact on the explained variable.
Second, the panel data model is used to examine the moderating role of geopolitical risk in the
impact of international relations on inbound tourism. The moderating effect of geopolitical risk
measures how IR and GPR jointly affect inbound tourism. Formula (2) is the moderating effect
model based on Formula (1):
In Formula (2), IR, GPR, and their interactions are considered all at once. In the formula,
i represents the serial number of tourist source countries, and the values of i are 1, 2, 3,. . ., 10.
j stands for China. t represents the time, which is 1999, 2000,. . ., 2018.
Finally, the marginal impact of IR and GPR on the number of inbound tourists is investigated. In
Formula (2), both sides of the equation take the derivative of IR at the same time. The results are
as follows:
Obviously, the coefficient γ3 reflects the interaction effect between IR and GPR. According to the
hypotheses, γ1＞0 and γ2＜0; if γ3＜0, it indicates that the moderating variable GPR inhibits the
impact of IR on inbound tourism. That is, GPR has a significant weakening and inhibiting effect on
the positive impact between IR and inbound tourism, which means that GPR has a significant
negative moderating effect.
3.3. Estimation method

This paper uses panel data analysis to estimate the relationship between international relations,
geopolitical risks, and inbound tourism in Formula (1) and Formula (2). According to the studies of
Baltagi (2008) and Wooldridge (2009), panel data models have an advantage over models with
cross-sectional or time series data because panel data allow researchers to control time invariant
country heterogeneity that cannot be achieved when using time series or cross-sectional data.
Without controlling this heterogeneity, biased results may be obtained (Moulton, 1986, 1987).
The paper uses the three estimation methods of ordinary least squares, fixed effects, and
random ef,fects at the same time to avoid the limitation of using one estimation method. For
the panel data used in this paper, ordinary least squares (mixed regression), assuming that
individual effects do not exist, are used to compare the “mixed regression” and the “fixed effects
model”, and the F-test and Least Square Dummy Variable (LSDV) are used to compare the “mixed
Page 19 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
regression” and the “fixed effects model”. The F-test and LSDV both strongly reject the original
hypothesis of using “mixed regression”, and then the comparison between “random effects” and
“mixed regression” is conducted. The Lagrangian Multiplier (LM) test for individual random effects
strongly rejects the use of “mixed regression”, and the random effects model should be used. Next,
the Hausman Test is needed to determine whether to use “fixed effects” or “random effects”, and
the results of the Hausman chi-square test strongly support the use of “fixed effects”. Through the
test, this paper finally uses the “fixed effect” estimation technique.
The main advantage of FE over RE is that as long as the ignored variables are time-invariant
(such as culture, location, and historical heritage), the deviation of ignored variables is avoided due
to the possible correlation between independent variables and ignored variables. Since it is difficult
to exclude such bias in advance (for example, international relations and culture are likely to be
interrelated), FE is the preferred estimation method in this study.
4. Empirical results
This paper selects panel data from China’s main source countries, including Australia, Germany,
France, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States of
America, for the period 1999–2018, and uses fixed effects models for research. The empirical
results show that first, international relations have a significant positive impact on inbound
tourism, while geopolitical risks have a significant negative impact on inbound tourism. Second,
geopolitical risk has a negative moderating effect on the impact of international relations on
inbound tourism. Finally, the partial effect of international relations on inbound tourism is different
under different geopolitical risk levels.
4.1. The impact of international relations and geopolitical risks on inbound tourism
To discuss this relationship in more detail, we first analyze the inbound tourist arrivals as the explained
variable according to Formula (1). Table 3 reports the estimated impacts of international relations (IR)
and geopolitical risk (GPR) on inbound tourism. Column 1 shows the impact of international relations (IR)
on inbound tourism. The international relations (IR) in Line 1 of the regression results are positive and
significant at the 1% level, indicating that the better a country’s international relations are, the more it
will attract tourists from other countries. Specifically, the regression results show that when the
International Relations Index (IR) rises by one unit, the number of tourists will increase by 5.67% with
other factors unchanged. Column 2 shows the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) on inbound tourism.
The second line of the regression results shows that the impact of GPR on inbound tourism is negative
and significant at the 5% level. When geopolitical risk (GPR) increases by one unit, inbound tourism
decreases by 0.47%. Column 3 shows the impact of inbound tourism and geopolitical risk (GPR) on
inbound tourism. In general, these results support Hypothesis 1 (H1) and Hypothesis 2 (H2); that is,
international relations (IR) promote a country’s inbound tourism, and geopolitical risks (GPR) hinder
a country’s inbound tourism. In addition, although some control variables are not statistically significant
(such as the exchange rate), other control variables show the expected signs. The coefficients of WHS
and lnFDI are both positive. The increase in the number of World Heritage sites and the amount of
foreign direct investment has promoted inbound tourism.
In general, international relations have always shown a positive impact on the promotion of
international tourism demand, while geopolitical risks have hindered the development of inbound
tourism. These two variables, together with control factors, explain more than 80% of the differ
ences in inbound tourism among countries. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are sup
ported by the data.
4.2. The moderating effect of geopolitical risks on the Impact of international relations on
inbound tourism
Hypothesis 3 (H3) proposes that geopolitical risks will weaken the positive impact of interna
tional relations on inbound tourism. To test this hypothesis, the product of international
relations and geopolitical risk (IR * GPR) is put into the regression as an independent variable.
Page 20 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Table 3. The impact of international relations and geopolitical risks on inbound tourism
Variables (1) ln(IT) (2) ln(IT) (3) ln(IT)
IR 0.0567*** 0.0466***
(0.0097) (0.0092)
GPR −0.0047** −0.0040***
(0.0008) (0.0007)
WHS 0.0342*** 0.0295*** 0.0308***
(0.0021) (0.0022) (0.0021)
lnFDI 0.1285*** 0.1377*** 0.1290***
(0.0219) (0.0216) (0.0204)
ROE 0.0010 −0.0003 0.0001
(0.0012) (0.0012) (0.0011)
lnDC 0.3640*** 0.2405*** 0.2347***
(0.0373) (0.0397) (0.0373)
lnPOP 2.0438*** 2.9103*** 2.2189***
(0.3643) (0.3320) (0.3407)
Constant −41.1069*** −54.8346*** −42.1381***
(6.7184) (6.0979) (6.2578)
Observations 200 200 200
R-squared 0.8569 0.8595 0.8760
state yes yes yes
Note: ***, **, and * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. Those in brackets are standard
errors.
According to Formula (2), when international relations (IR) and geopolitical risk (GPR) interact,
the estimation results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 shows that the effects of the interaction
between international relations and geopolitical risks on inbound tourism are analyzed using
the decentralized regression model and the centralized regression model. Column 1 is the
regression result of adding the interaction term of international relations (IR) and geopolitical
risk (GPR); Column 2 is the regression result of adding the interaction term of international
relations (IR) and geopolitical risk (GPR) after centering. Column 4 is the regression result of
centralized international relations (IR) and geopolitical risk (GPR) and the centralized interac
tion term. Centering, which is subtracting the sample mean from the variable, reduces the
covariance between the interaction term and the independent and moderating variables by
centering and does not affect the estimation of the model. In all cases, the coefficient of the
interaction term is negative and significant at the 1% level. The results show that the interac
tion between international relations and geopolitical risks has a significant negative impact on
inbound tourism (β = −0.0004, p < 0.05). This shows that geopolitical risks have a negative
moderating effect on the positive relationship between international relations and inbound
tourism, which supports Hypothesis 3.
The negative interaction effect of international relations (IR) and geopolitical risk (GPR) means
that the effect of IR decreases with increasing GPR. According to Formula (3), taking the results in
the second column of Table 4 as an example, only when GPR is lower than 0.092/0.0004 = 230 is
the partial effect of IR on lnIT positive, and the maximum value of geopolitical risk (GPR) in the
data is 156, indicating that although the geopolitical risk (GPR) inhibits the impact of international
relations on inbound tourism, it only affects the intensity and does not change the direction of the
impact.
4.3. The partial effect of international relations on inbound tourism under different
geopolitical risk levels
To visualize the moderating role of geopolitical risk, we plot the moderating role at different levels
of geopolitical risk, as shown in Figures 3. Figure 3 shows the impact model of the negative
Page 21 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Table 4. The moderating effect of geopolitical risks on international relations and inbound
tourism
Variables (1) ln(IT) (2) ln(IT) (3) ln(IT)
IR 0.0924*** 0.0511***
(0.0237) (0.0094)
GPR −0.0023** −0.0040***
(0.0011) (0.0007)
IR* GPR −0.0004**
(0.0002)
c_ IR 0.0511***
(0.0094)
c_ GPR −0.0040***
(0.0007)
c_IR*c_GPR −0.0004** −0.0004**
(0.0002) (0.0002)
WHS 0.0305*** 0.0305*** 0.0305***
(0.0021) (0.0021) (0.0021)
lnFDI 0.1290*** 0.1290*** 0.1290***
(0.0202) (0.0202) (0.0202)
ROE 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
(0.0011) (0.0011) (0.0011)
lnDC 0.2327*** 0.2327*** 0.2327***
(0.0373) (0.0373) (0.0373)
lnPOP 2.2386*** 2.2386*** 2.2386***
(0.3377) (0.3377) (0.3377)
Constant −42.6859*** −42.5077*** −42.7078***
(6.2060) (6.2030) (6.2217)
Observations 200 200 200
R-squared 0.8782 0.8782 0.8782
state yes yes yes
Note: ***, **, and * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. Those in brackets are standard
errors. c_ IR and c_ GPR denote centralized international relations and geopolitical risk index.
Figure 3. Differences in the 6

impact of international rela
tions on inbound tourism mod
erated by different geopolitical
risk levels.
inbound tourist arrivals
low geopolitical risk
high geopolitical risk

3
low international relation high
Page 22 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Table 5. The partial effect of international relations on different levels of geopolitical risk
GPR ln(IT)
GPR=80 0.0607***
(0.0114)
GPR=100 0.0528***
(0.0096)
GPR=120 0.0449***
(0.0091)
GPR=140 0.0370***
(0.0102)
GPR=160 0.0291**
(0.0112)
GPR= mean 0.0511***
(0.0094)
Note: The impact is estimated based on Equation 3. ***, **, and * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%,
respectively. Those in brackets are standard errors.
interaction between international relations (IR) and geopolitical risk (GPR). According to the
procedure recommended by Cohen et al. (2003), taking three standards deviations higher than
the average value and three standards deviations lower than the average value as the benchmark,
this paper describes the differences in the impact of international relations on inbound tourism
under different geopolitical risk levels. The results show that the higher the geopolitical risk is, the
smaller the positive impact of international relations on inbound tourism. The impact of interna
tional relations on inbound tourist arrivals is stronger at a low geopolitical risk level than at a high
geopolitical risk level.
We further explore the partial effects of international relations on inbound tourism at various
levels of GPR and report the results in Tables 5 (Saha et al., 2016). The partial effects are based on
the equation:
where μ1 take values from minimum to maximum values of the GPR. The coefficient β1 measures
the partial effect of international relations when μ1 takes the value from minimum to maximum
values for the GPR. China’s geopolitical risk value has ranged between 80 and 160 over the past 20
years. Therefore, we calculate the partial effect of international relations on inbound tourism when
the geopolitical risk value is between 80 and 160.
The results show that the partial effect of international relations (IR) on inbound tourism
decreases with increasing geopolitical risk (GPR). The coefficient of impact of international relations
on inbound tourism is 0.0607 when the geopolitical risk is 80, the coefficient is 0.0291 when the
geopolitical risk is 160, and decreases to less than half when the geopolitical risk is doubled. There
is no volatility or insignificance, but it can be expected that geopolitical risks increase to a point
where the impact of international relations on inbound tourism will change direction.
5. Conclusions
Using panel data fixed-effects estimation, this paper examines the impact of international rela
tions on inbound tourism under different geopolitical risks from 1999 to 2018. The results show
that international relations have significant positive impact on inbound tourism. This finding is
consistent with the results of several other studies (Davis & Meunier, 2011; Davis et al., 2019) that
“trade follows the flag”, i.e., political relations between countries drive bilateral commercial
activities between countries (e.g., Chu et al., 2021; Keshk et al., 2004; Su et al., 2022; Zhou et al.,
2021). Zhou et al. (2021) argued that tourists respond more to negative political shocks than
Page 23 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
positive ones, Su et al. (2022) concluded that political relations and international tourism are
causally related, and not vice versa. Unlike them, we concluded that good international relations
have a continuing positive impact on inbound tourism. This conclusion is consistent with the
findings of Chu et al. (2021) that the optimization of international relations significantly contri
butes to inbound tourism arrivals, but unlike he focuses on monthly data, and suggests that the
annual impact is only instantaneous effect, our results show that the impact of annual data of
international relations on inbound tourism is highly significant. Specifically: when the International
Relations Index (IR) rises by 1, the number of inbound tourists will increase by 5.67%. So, by
promoting good international relations perceived by citizens, more international tourists can be
attracted to China. However, geopolitical risks hinder the development of inbound tourism. The
results is consistent with most of the research findings (e.g., Demir et al., 2019; Kazakova & Kim,
2021; Wang et al., 2022, etc.).
Different from most studies that examine the mediating mechanism of international relations
affecting inbound tourism (Chen et al., 2016; Cheng & Wong, 2014; Chu et al., 2021). We focus on
the moderating mechanism, which is mainly inspired by Zhou et al. (2021), where geopolitical
conflicts between China and Japan, affect the tourism flows from China and South Korea (Zhou
et al., 2021). So, we think about whether one of the countries in a pair causes an increase in
geopolitical risk with a third country (this geopolitical risk may also come from the other country),
will it affect the bilateral tourism between them? So, we conducted a hypothetical study on
geopolitics as a moderating variable. The results of the moderating effect show that international
relations have a positive impact on inbound tourism on the average score of geopolitical risks;
however, when local geopolitical risks are high, the impact will be reduced. The partial interaction
effect of international relations and geopolitical risks provides interesting insights to determine the
impact of international relations on inbound tourism at different levels of geopolitical risks. When
the risk of geopolitical risk is sufficiently high, i.e., when the geopolitical risk is greater than 230, the
bias effect of international relations on inbound tourism is negative, i.e., when a country’s geopo
litical risk grows to a certain threshold, it may become an overwhelming factor affecting the two
countries’ international exchanges, including international tourism of the nature of civil diplomacy.
In the past 20 years, China’s geopolitical risk is basically in the controllable range of 80–160, which
only has a negative moderating effect on the impact of international relations on inbound tourism,
but does not change the direction of its impact. The coefficient of the impact of international
relations on inbound tourism fluctuates between 0.0291 and 0.0607 under geopolitical risk
moderation.
The improvement of international relations and the reduction of geopolitical risks are difficult to
achieve in a short time. In long-term international communications and practices, countries need
to constantly seek breakthroughs to improve international relations and reduce geopolitical risks.
Countries should seek common interests and aspirations to mitigate geopolitical risks and improve
international relations. Policymakers should be alert to the geopolitical media climate and
strengthen the maintenance of good international relations to promote inbound tourism.
Tourism operators and decision-makers should utilize social media platforms—which have become
a public good—to mitigate the negative impact of political gridlock on tourism (Farhangi & Alipour,
2021).
Additionally, we should pay attention to the diplomatic civilian nature of inbound tourism and
continue to promote the improvement of tourism in international relations. Tourism policymakers
and decision-making departments promote international exchanges through international tourism
cooperation and exchanges, such as the China-US Tourism Year, the China-Australia Tourism Year,
etc., and guide and regulate the behavior of outbound tourists by formulating guidelines for
civilized behavior in outbound tourism, as well as guiding the international integration of the
tourism industry through the tourism industry regulatory system. Inbound tourism, which benefits
from the improvement of international relations and the reduction of geopolitical risks, is an
important carrier for the realization of the long-term goal of people-to-people communication
Page 24 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
and the promotion of peaceful development. In international relations, tourists are the most basic
and extensive force (Jin, 2002). As an important method of civil diplomacy, tourism has a more
long-term effect on improving the foundation of the social and public opinion of friendship and
mutual trust between countries than sensitive conventional diplomacy. The people-to-people
diplomacy function of international tourism should become an important consideration for
national and local governments in formulating tourism development strategies.
The first limitation is reflected in the fact that we use the international relations indicator, which
has relevant political events from Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the People’s Republic of China, and we hope to obtain more data on international relations from
more international media for future arguments. Another limitation is that we mainly focus on
China’s inbound tourism and lack data on outbound tourism. In the future, we hope to add
bilateral data on outbound tourism from China to major source countries to support our research.
Funding 26(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.

This work was supported by the [Humanities and Social 2005.00408.x
Sciences Youth Fund Project of Education Ministry of Alola, U. V., Cop, S., & Adewale, A. A. (2019). The spillover
China] under Grant [18YJC790188]; and [Doctoral effects of tourism receipts, political risk, real
Program Foundation of Jiangsu Normal University] under exchange rate, and trade indicators in Turkey.
Grant [21XFRS029]. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(6),
813–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2307
Author details Alsarayreh, M. N., Jawabreh, O. A., & Helalat, M. S. (2010).
Xie Wujie1 The influence of terrorism on the international tour
E-mail: xiewujie_419@163.com ism activities. European Journal of Social Science.
1
School of History Culture and Tourism, Jiangsu Normal 13 (1), 145–160.
University, Xuzhou, China. Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2014). The influence of political
conflicts on country image and intention to visit:
Disclosure statement A study of Israel’s image. Tourism Management, 40,
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.05.009
author(s). Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2020). Consumer animosity
and its influence on visiting decisions of US citizens.
Supplementary material Current Issues in Tourism, 23(9), 1166–1180. https://
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1603205
at https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244. Anderson, N. H. (2014). A functional theory of cognition.
Psychology Press.
Citation information Bac, D. P., Bugnar, N. G., & Mester, L. E. (2015). Terrorism
Cite this article as: The impact of geopolitical risks and and its impacts on the tourism industry. Revista
international relations on inbound tourism——evidence Romana de Geografie Politica, 17(1), 5–11.
from China and key source countries, Xie Wujie, Cogent Balcilar, M., Bonato, M., Demirer, R., & Gupta, R. (2018).
Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2285244. Geopolitical risks and stock market dynamics of the
BRICS. Economic Systems.
References Balli, F., Uddin, G. S., & Shahzad, S. J. H. (2019).
Abraham, V., & Poria, Y. (2019). A research note exploring Geopolitical risk and tourism demand in emerging
socially visible consumption in tourism. Tourism economies. Tourism Economics, 25(6), 997–1005.
Management, 70, 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619831824
tourman.2018.07.012 Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data.
Ahn, J. B., Greaney, T. M., & Kiyota, K. (2022). Political Wiley.
conflict and angry consumers: Evaluating the regio Beirman, D. (2002). Marketing of tourism destinations
nal impacts of a consumer boycott on travel services during a prolonged crisis: Israel and the middle East.
trade. Journal of the Japanese and International Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 167–176. https://
Economies, 65, 101216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie. doi.org/10.1177/135676670200800206
2022.101216 Benedikter, R., & Ouedraogo, I. (2019). Saving West Africa
Akamavi, R. K., Ibrahim, F., & Swaray, R. (2022). Tourism from the rise of terrorism: Burkina Faso’s ‘emergency
and troubles: Effects of security threats on the global program for the Sahel’ and the need for
travel and tourism industry performance. Journal of a multidimensional strategy. Global Change, Peace &
Travel Research, 1755–1800. 62 8 https://doi.org/10. Security, 31(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1177/00472875221138792 14781158.2018.1449101
Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Hermann, R. K. (1999). Bertoli, A. D. (2017). Nationalism and conflict: Lessons
Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group from international sports. International Studies
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Quarterly 610 (4) November: 835–849. https://doi.
Psychology, 77(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/ org/10.1093/isq/sqx029
0022-3514.77.1.78 Bianchi, R. (2006). Tourism and the globalisation of fear:
Alexander, M. G., Levin, S., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Image Analysing the politics of risk and (in) security in glo
theory, social identity, and social dominance: bal travel. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 70 (1),
Structural characteristics and individual motives 064–74. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.thr.
underlying international images. Political Psychology, 6050028
Page 25 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Bilgin, M. H., Gozgor, G., & Karabulut, G. (2020). How do Chu, Y., Huang, X., & Jin, T. (2021). Political relations and
geopolitical risks affect government investment? An tourism: Evidence from China. Applied Economics, 53
empirical investigation. Defence and Peace (45), 5281–5302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.
Economics, 31(5), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2021.1922591
10242694.2018.1513620 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Broda, C. (2006). Exchange rate regimes and national price Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
levels. Journal of International Economics, 70(1), 52–81. the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.11.002 Associates.
Buda, D. M. (2016). Tourism in conflict areas: Complex Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing
entanglements in Jordan. Journal of Travel Research, barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9(2),
55(7), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0047287515601253 01490408709512151
Bülbüloğlu, B. (2022). Turkey’s tourism sector to pay price Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2018). Media/Society:
for Russia-Ukraine war. Daily Sabah. https://www.dai Technology, industries, content, and users (6th ed.).
lysabah.com/business/tourism/turkeys-tourism- Sage Publications, Inc.
sector-topay-price-for-russia-ukraine-war Cruz- Milán, O., Simpson, J. J., Simpson, P. M., & Choi, W.
Butler, R. W., & Mao, B. (1996). Conceptual and theoretical (2016). Reassurance or reason for concern: Security
implications of tourism between partitioned states. forces as a crisis management strategy. Tourism
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 25–34. Management, 56, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941669708721961 tourman.2016.04.002
Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2018). Measuring geopolitical Davis, C. L., Fuchs, A., & Johnson, K. (2019). State control
risk. Working paper, Board of Governors of the and the effects of foreign relations on bilateral trade.
Federal Reserve Board. Social Science Electronic Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 405–438. https://
Publishing. doi.org/10.1177/0022002717739087
Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2019). Measuring geopolitical Davis, C. L., & Meunier, S. (2011). Business as usual?
risk. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board Economic responses to political tensions. American
Working Paper, December. Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 628–646. https://
Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00507.x
risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. Deep, A., & Johnston, C. S. (2017). Travel Advisories–
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823 destabilising Diplomacy in Disguise. Journal of Policy
Campo, S., & Alvarez, M. D. (2017). Consumer animosity Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 90 (1),
and affective country image. In A. Correia, M. Kozak, 082–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2016.
J. Gnoth, & A. Fyall (Eds.). Co-creation and well-being 1231195
in tourism (pp. 119-131). Springer. Demiralay, S., & Kilincarslan, E. (2019). The Impact of
Canally, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2007). Perceived constraints Geopolitical risks on travel and leisure stocks.
to travel across the US–Mexico border among Tourism Management, 75, 460–476. https://doi.org/
American University students. International Journal 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.013
of Tourism Research, 9(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/ Demir, E., Gozgor, G., & Paramati, S. R. (2019). Do geopo
10.1002/jtr.614 litical risks matter for inbound tourism? Eurasian
Chand, S., & Levantis, T., (2000). The Fiji coup: A spate of Business Review, 9(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.
economic catastrophes. Pacific Economic Bulletin 15 1007/s40821-019-00118-9
(1), 2–33. Demir, E., Simonyan, S., Chen, M. H., & Marco Lau, C. K.
Chen, H. J., Chen, P. J., & Okumus, F. (2013). The relationship (2020). Asymmetric effects of geopolitical risks on
between travel constraints and destination image: Turkey’s tourist arrivals. Journal of Hospitality &
A case study of Brunei. Tourism Management, 35, Tourism Management 45, 23–26. https://doi.org/10.
198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07. 1016/j.jhtm.2020.04.006
004 Deutsch, K. (1966). Nationalism and social communica
Chen, Y. W., & Duggan, N. (2016). Soft power and tourism: tion: Inquiry into the foundations of nationality (2th
A study of Chinese outbound tourism to Africa. Journal ed.). MIT Press.
of China and International Relations, 4(1), 45–66. Dowd, C., & Raleigh, C. (2013). The myth of global islamic
Cheng, M., & Wong, A. I. (2014). Tourism and Chinese terrorism and local conflict in Mali and the Sahel.
popular nationalism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural African Affairs, 112(448), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.
Change, 12(4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1093/afraf/adt039
14766825.2014.914948 Dritsakis, N., & Gialetaki, K. (2004). Cointegration analysis
Cheng, M., Wong, A., & Prideaux, B. (2016). Political travel of tourism revenues by the member countries of the
constraint: The role of Chinese popular nationalism. European Union to Greece. Tourism Analysis, 9(3),
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 34 3 383–397 179–186.https://doi.org/10.3727/1083542042781258
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1182456 Drury, A. C., & Li, Y. (2006). U.S. Economic sanction threats
Cheng, M., Wong, A. I., & Prideaux, B. (2017). Political against China: Failing to leverage better human
travel constraint: The role of Chinese popular rights. Foreign Policy Analysis, 20 (4), 0307–324.
nationalism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00033.x
34(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408. Du, Y., Ju, J., Ramirez, C. D., & Yao, X. (2017). Bilateral
2016.1182456 trade and shocks in political relations: Evidence from
Chen, C. C., Lai, Y. H. R., Petrick, J. F., & Lin, Y. H. (2016). China and some of its major trading partners, 1990–
Tourism between divided nations: An examination of 2013. Journal of International Economics, 108,
stereotyping on destination image. Tourism 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.07.
Management, 55(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 002
tourman.2016.01.012 Edwards, S. (1998). Openness,productivity and growth:
Christophorou, C., Sahin, S., & Pavlou, S. 2010. Media nar What do we really know? Economics Journal,108
ratives, politics and the Cyprus problem; Peace (447), 383–398.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.
Research Institute: 00293
Page 26 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Edwards, S. L., & Dennis, S. J. (1976). Long Distance Day Tourism, crime and international security issues.
Tripping in Grate Britain. Journal of Transports Wiley, pp. 105–121.
Economics and Policy, 10(3), 237–256. Hayward-Jones, J., 2009. Fiji: The flailing state. Lowy
Eichengreen, B., & Irwin, D. A. 1998. “The role of history in Institute for International Policy,
bilateral trade flows.” In The regionalization of the He, Y. (2014). History, Chinese nationalism and emerging
world economy, A. F. Jeffrey, Ed., pp. 33–62. Sino-Japan conflict. In S. Zhao (Ed.), Construction of
University of Chicago Press. chinese nationalism in the Early 21st Century (pp.
Eilat, Y., & Einav, L. (2004). Determinants of international 185–208). Routledge.
tourism: A three Dimensional panel data analysis. Hegre, H., O’neal, J., & Russett, B. (2010). Trade does
Applied Economics, 36(12), 1315–1327.https://doi. promote peace: New simultaneous estimates of the
org/10.1080/000368404000180897 reciprocal effects of trade and conflict. Journal of
Farhangi, S., & Alipour, H. (2021). Social media as Peace Research, 47(6), 763–774. https://doi.org/10.
a catalyst for the enhancement of destination image: 1177/0022343310385995
Evidence from a Mediterranean destination with Hu, W. X. (2022). Russia-Ukraine conflict,Great power
political conflict. Sustainability, 13(13), 7276. https:// competition and the Evolution of the World geopoli
doi.org/10.3390/su13137276 tical Pattern—from the perspective of geopolitics.
Farmaki, A. (2017). The tourism and peace nexus. Tourism Asia Pacific Security and Marine Research, 4,12–28.
Management, 59, 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hu, Z. D., Ge, Y. J., & Du, D. B. (2021). Do mainstream IR
tourman.2016.09.012 theories surpass geoplitical theories? Pacific Journal,
Fletcher, J., & Morakabati, Y. (2008). Tourism activity, 29(9), 43–53.
terrorism and political instability within the com Ingram, H., Grieve, D., Ingram, H., Tabari, S., &
monwealth: The cases of Fiji and Kenya. International Watthanakhomprathip, W. (2013). The impact of
Journal of Tourism Research, 10(6), 537–556. https:// political instability on tourism: Interviewee of
doi.org/10.1002/jtr.699 Thailand. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes,
Flint, C. (2016). Introduction to geopolitics. Routledge. 5, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Fourie, J., Rosselló-Nadal, J., & Santana-Gallego, M. 17554211311292475
(2020). Fatal attraction: How security threats hurt Isaac, R. K., & Eid, T. A. (2019). Tourists’ destination
tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 590 (2), 209–219. image: An exploratory study of alternative tourism in
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519826208 Palestine. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(12),
Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2011). The adverse effect of 1499–1522. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.
transnational and domestic terrorism on growth in 1534806
Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 48(3), 355–371. Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310395798 Short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of
Gettleman, J., Yasir, S., & Kumar, H. (2021, September 24). Economics, 68(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/
India and China face off again at border as troops move 1884452
in. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/ Ivanov, S., Idzhylova, K., & Webster, C. (2016). Impacts of
31/world/asia/india-china-troops-border.html. the entry of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea into
Ghalia, T., Fidrmuc, J., Samargandi, N., & Sohag, K. (2019). the Russian Federation on its tourism industry: An
Institutional quality, political risk and tourism. exploratory study. Tourism Management, 54,
Tourism Management Perspect. 32, 100576. https:// 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100576 016
Gillen, J., & Mostafanezhad, M. (2019). Geopolitical Jiang, D. C., & Zhang, Q. C. (2011). Gravity modeling ana
encounters of tourism: A conceptual approach. lysis of U.S. Direct investment in China. Journal of
Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 70–78. https://doi. World Economy, 34(5),26–41.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.015 Jin, W. (2002). Rambling on unofficial diplomacy. World
Gil-Pareja, S., Llorca, R., & Martínez, J. A. (2007). The effect Knowledge, 6, 46–47.
of EMU on tourism. Review of International Jin, X., Qu, M., & Bao, J. (2019). Impact of crisis events on
Economics, 15(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. Chinese outbound tourist flow: A framework for
1467-9396.2006.00620.x post-events growth. Tourism Management, 74,
Glick, R., & Taylor, A. (2010). Collateral damage: Trade 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.
disruption and the economic impact of war. Review 011
of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 102–127. https:// Jørgensen, M. T., King, B. E., & Law, R. (2020). The impacts
doi.org/10.1162/rest.2009.12023 of China’s policy-making and legislation on outbound
Gozgor, G., Demir, E., & Bilgin, M. H. (2017). The effects of tourism – perspectives from long-haul intermedi
the military in politics on the inbound tourism: aries. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure
Evidence from Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism and Events, 12(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Research, 22 (8), 885–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19407963.2018.1505104
10941665.2017.1343196 Juana, Y., Choib, Y., An, S., Lee, C., & Lee, S. J. (2017). The
Griffiths, I., & Sharpley, R. (2012). Influences of national constraints of Chinese tourists to visit Korea caused
ism on tourist-host relationships. Annals of Tourism by THAAD using Q-methodology. Asia Pacific Journal
Research, 39(4), 2051–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/ of Tourism Research, 22(12), 1261–1273. https://doi.
j.annals.2012.07.002 org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1391306
Guo, G. X., Zhou, X., & Tu, H. W. (2016). Consumer ani Kazakova, A., & Kim, I. (2021). Geopolitical-risk and eco
mosity, self-efficacy and willingness-to-visit: An nomic policy—uncertainty impacts on tourist flows
empirical study on young outbound tourism market. from neighboring countries: A wavelet analysis.
Tourism Tribune, 31(2), 44–52. Sustainability, 13(24), 13751. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and su132413751
place. Wiley. Keshk, O. M., Pollins, B. M., & Reuveny, R. (2004). Trade still
Hall, C. M., & O’Sullivan, V. (1996). Tourism, political sta follows the flag: The primacy of politics in
bility and violence. In A. Pizam & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), a simultaneous model of interdependence andarmed
Page 27 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
conflict. The Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1155–1179. Li, S., Yang, Y., Zhong, Z., & Tang, X. (2021). Agent-based
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00294.x modeling of spatial spillover effects in visitor flows.
Khadaroo, J., & Seetanah, B. (2008). The role of Transport Journal of Travel Research, 60(3), 546–563. https://
Infrastructure in international tourism development: doi.org/10.1177/0047287520930105
A gravity model approach. Tourism Management, Lloyd, P. J., & Maclaren, D. (2002). Measures of trade
290 (5): 0831–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. Openness using CGE analysis. Journal of Policy
2007.09.005 Modeling, 24(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Kim, J. H. (2019). Animosity and switching intention: S0161-8938(01)00096-5
Moderating factors in the decision making of Chinese Maslow, S. (2016). China and Japan: Partner, rival, and
ethnic diners. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(2), enemy? In S. Harnisch, S. Bersick, & J.-C. Gottwald
174–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/ (Eds.), China’s international role (pp. 188–206).
1938965518789347 Routledge.
Kim, S., & Prideaux, B. (2012). A post-colonial analysis of Mehmood, S., Ahmad, Z., & Khan, A. A. (2016). Dynamic
bilateral tourism flows: The case of Korea and Japan. relationships between tourist arrivals, immigrants,
International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(6), and crimes in the United States. Tourism
586–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.859 Management, 54, 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kim, S., Prideaux, B., & Timothy, D. (2016). Factors tourman.2015.12.010
affecting bilateral Chinese and Japanese travel. Mojtahedzadeh, P. (2000). Persian Gulf: Countries, bound
Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 80–95. https://doi. aries. Ataee:
org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.08.001 Morakabati, Y. (2012). Tourism in the middle East:
King, B., & Berno, T. (2006). Fiji Islands: Rebuilding tourism Conflicts, crises and economic diversification, some
in an insecure world. In Y. Mansfeld & A. Pizam (Eds.), critical issues. International Journal of Tourism
Tourism, security and safety (pp. 67–82). Taylor & Research, 150 (4), 0375–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Francis. jtr.1882
Koch, M. (2022, March 2). Ukraine: What Russia’s war Morakabati, Y. (2013). Tourism in the middle East: Conflicts,
means for the global travel industry. Deutsche Welle. crises and economic diversification, some critical
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-what-russias-war- issues. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15,
means-for-the-globaltravel-industry/a-60987329. 375–387. 4 https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1882
Korstanje, M., & Clayton, A. (2012). Tourism and terrorism: Morakabati, Y., & Beavis, J. (2017). Do terrorist attacks leave
Conflicts and commonalities. Worldwide Hospitality & an identifiable ‘fingerprint’ on international tourist arri
Tourism Themes, 4(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/ val data? International Journal of Tourism Research, 19
17554211211198552 (2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2095
Kreck, L. A. (1998). Tourism in former eastern European Morley, C., Rosselló, J., & Santana-Gallego, M. (2014).
societies: Ideology in conflict with requisites. Journal Gravity models for tourism demand: Theory and use.
of Travel Research, 36(4), 62–67. https://doi.org/10. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 1–10. https://doi.org/
1177/004728759803600408 10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.008
Kundra, S., Alam, M., & Alam, M. A. (2021). How do poli Moulton, B. R. (1986). Random group effects and the
tical coups disrupt Fiji’s tourism? Impact assessment precision of regression estimates. Journal of
on ecotourism at Koroyanitu National Heritage Park Econometrics, 32(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.
(KNHP), Abaca Heliyon, 7:1–9. (5) https://doi.org/10. 1016/0304-4076(86)90021-7
1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07101 Moulton, B. R. (1987). Diagnostics for group effects in
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. regression analysis. Journal of Business and Economic
(2005). The influence of country image structure on Statistics, 5(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/
consumer evaluations of foreign products. 07350015.1987.10509586
International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96–115. Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510581190 Destination in a country image context. Annals of
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk Tourism Research, 35(1), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.
and international tourism. Annals of Tourism 1016/j.annals.2007.06.012
Research, 300 (3), 606–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Navickas, V., Petrokė, I., Urbanski, M., & Soboleva, O.
S0160-7383(03)00024-0 (2022). Macroeconomic factors influencing the
Lim, K. F. (2012). What you see is (not) what you get? The development of the sharing economy in the
Taiwan question, geo-economic realities, and the Lithuanian tourism sector. Journal of Tourism and
“China threat” imaginary. Antipode, 44(4), Services, 25(13), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.29036/
1348–1373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330. jots.v13i25.437
2011.00943.x Nguyen, T. T., Timilsina, R. R., Sonobe, T., & Rahut, D. B.
Lim, D. J., Ferguson, V. A., & Bishop, R. (2020). Chinese (2023). Interstate war and food security:
outbound tourism as an instrument of economic Implications from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
statecraft. Journal of Contemporary China, 29(126), Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1080696.
916–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1080696
1744390 Oded, L. (2007). The responsibility to Responsibilize:
Linnemann, H. 1966. An econometric study of interna Foreign offices and the issuing of travel warnings.
tional trade flows. North-Holland Publishing International Political Sociology, 10 (3), 0203–221.
Company. Parkin, B., & Ratnaweera, M. (2022, March 7). Ukraine
Lin, P. M. C., Zhang, Q. H., Gu, Q., & Peng, K. (2017). To go or not crisis batters Sri Lanka’s tea and tourism recovery
to go: Travel constraints and attractiveness of travel strategy. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/con
affecting outbound Chinese tourists to Japan. Journal of tent/3a6d3822-7c7a-4c62-9a0e-dcff37e2a175.
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(9), 1184–1197. https:// Pearce, P. L., & Stringer, P. F. (1991). Psychology and
doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1327392 tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 136–154.
Liu, X. S. (2021). The new international relations surpass https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90044-C
the traditional geopolitical view. Social Science Front, Podoshen, J. S., & Hunt, J. M. (2011). Equity restoration,
12, 192–201. the holocaust and tourism of sacred sites. Tourism
Page 28 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Management, 32(6), 1332–1342. https://doi.org/10. 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.

1016/j.tourman.2011.01.007 1051518
Prayag, G. (2009). TOURISTS’ EVALUATIONS of Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., &
DESTINATION IMAGE, SATISFACTION, and FUTURE Zhan, F. (2013). Destination risk perceptions among
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS—THE CASE of MAURITIUS. US residents for London as the host city of the 2012
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, 836–853. Summer Olympic Games. Tourism Management, 38,
(8) https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903358729 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.
Prideaux, B., & Kim, S. (2018). Protocols as a strategy to 001
reduce travel barriers between countries experien Seddighi, H. R., Nuttall, M. W., & Theocharous, A. L. (2001).
cing or have recently experienced serious political Does Cultural background of tourists influence the
difficulties. Tourism Recreation Research, 43(2), destination choice? an empirical study with special
197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017. reference to political instability. Tourism
1390634 Management. 22 (2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.
Quadri, D. L., & Zheng, T. A. (2010). Revisit to the impact 1016/S0261-5177(00)00046-7
of exchange rates on tourism demand: The case of Semetko, H. A., Brzinski, J. B., Weaver, D., & Willnat, L.
Italy. Journal of Hospitality Financial Management, 18 (1992). TV news and U.S. Public Opinion about foreign
(2), 36–45.https://doi.org/10.1080/10913211.2010. countries: The impact of exposure and attention.
10653894 International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncer 40 (1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/4.1.18
tainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism Sharpley, R. (2003). Tourism, modernisation and devel
example. Tourism Management 310 (6), 797–805. opment on the island of Cyprus: Challenges and pol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006 icy responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2–
Ranga, M., & Pradhan, P. (2014). Terrorism terrorizes 3), 246–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/
tourism: Indian tourism effacing myths? 09669580308667205
International Journal of Safety and Security Tour, 1, Sharpley, R., Sharpley, J., & Adams, J. (1996). Travel
26–39. advice or trade embargo? the impacts and implica
Richter, L. K. (1983). Tourism politics and political science: tions of official travel advice. Tourism Management,
A case of not so benign neglect. Annals of Tourism 170 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(95)
Research, 10(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 00094-1
0160-7383(83)90060-9 Smith, A. (2010). Nationalism: Theory, ideology, history
Richter, L. K. (1989). The politic of tourism in Asia. (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
University of Hawaii Press. Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998a). Determining future
Richter, L. K., & Waugh, J. (1986). Terrorism and tourism as travel behavior from past travel experience and per
logical companions. Tourism Management, 7(4), ceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel
230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(86) Research, 370 (2), 0171–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/
90033-6 004728759803700209
Rogers, A., Castree, N., & Kitchin, R. (2013): A dictionary of Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998b). Influence of ter
human geography, Oxford University Press. rorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of
Saha, S., Su, J. J., & Campbell, N. (2016). Does Political and Tourism Research, 25(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.
Economic Freedom Matter for Inbound Tourism? A 1016/S0160-7383(97)00072-8
Cross-National Panel Data Estimation. Journal of Stepchenkova, S., Dai, X., Kirilenko, A. P., & Su, L. (2020).
Travel Research,1–14. 56 2 https://doi.org/10.1177/ The influence of animosity, ethnocentric tendencies,
0047287515627028 and national attachment on tourists’ decision-
Saha, S., & Yap, G. (2014). The moderation effects of making processes during international conflicts.
political instability and terrorism on tourism devel Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 1370–1385. https://
opment: A cross-country panel analysis. Journal of doi.org/10.1177/0047287519880012
Travel Research, 530 (4): 509–521. https://doi.org/10. Stepchenkova, S., & Shichkova, E. (2016). Country and
1177/0047287513496472 destination image domains of a place: Framework for
Saint Akadiri, S., Eluwole, K. K., Akadiri, A. C., & Avci, T. (2019). quantitative comparison. Journal of Travel Research,
Does causality between geopolitical risk, tourism and 56(6), 776–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/
economic growth matter? Evidence from Turkey. Journal 0047287516663320
of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 43, 273–277. Stepchenkova, S., & Shichkova, E. (2017). Attractiveness
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.09.002 of the United States as a travel destination for the
Samitas, A., Asteriou, D., Polizos, S., & Kenourgios, D. Russian tourist in the era of strained bilateral
(2018). Terrorist incidents and tourism demand: relations. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 3(1),
Evidence from Greece. Tourism Management 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-10-2016-0047
Perspectives, 25, 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Stepchenkova, S., Shichkova, E., Kim, M., & Rykhtik, M. I.
tmp.2017.10.005 (2018). Do strained bilateral relations affect tourists’
Sánchez, M., Campo, S., & Alvarez, M. D. (2018). The effect desire to visit a country that is a target of animosity?
of animosity on the intention to visit tourist Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(5),
destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.
Management, 7, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1374907
jdmm.2016.11.003 Stepchenkova, S., Su, L., & Shichkova, E. (2019). Intention
Santanagallego, M., Ledesmarodriguez, F., & to travel internationally and domestically in unstable
Perezrodriguez, J. V. (2010). Exchange Rate Regimes world. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(2),
and Tourism. Tourism Economics, 16(1), 25–43. 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-01-2018-0012
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000010790872015 Su, Y. W., & Lin, H. L. (2014). Analysis of international
Santeramo, F. G., & Morelli, M. (2016). Modelling tourism tourist arrivals worldwide: The role of world heritage
flows through gravity models: A quantile regression sites. Tourism Management, 40, 46–58. https://doi.
approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 190 (11), org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.005
Page 29 of 30
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244
Su, J. J., Pham, T. D., & Dwyer, L. (2022). Political relations Wang, H., Khan, Y. A., Mouldi, A., Abou El Khier, B. S., &
and bilateral tourism demand: The case of China and Guo, W. (2022). The impact of geopolitical and pan
Japan. International Journal of Tourism Research, 24 demic risks on tourist inflows: Evidence from
(3), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2505 Asia-Pacific region. Frontiers in Environmental
Su, L., Stepchenkova, S., & Dai, X. (2020). The Science. 10:850729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.
core-periphery image of South Korea on the Chinese 2022.850729
tourist market in the times of conflict over THAAD. Wang, J. J., Sun, G. N., & Shu, J. J. (2009). The impact of
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 17, Sino-American relations and crisis events on the
100457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100457 interactive tourism flows in the past twenty years.
Tang, Y., Zhong, M., Qin, H., Liu, Y., & Xiang, L. (2019). Tourism Tribune, 24(5), 12–19.
Negative word of mouth about foreign lands: Warner, J. (1999). North Cyprus: Tourism and the
Dimensions of the shared discomforts narrated in Challenge of non-recognition. Journal of Sustainable
travel blogs. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Tourism, 7(2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Science, 29(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669589908667331
21639159.2019.1622436 Webster, C., Ivanov, S. H., Gavrilina, M., Idzhylova, K., &
Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Sypchenko, L. (2017). Hotel industry’s reactions to the
Measurement of destination brand bias using a Crimea crisis. E Review Tour Research, 14(1–2), 57–71.
quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28 Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics:
(6), 1529–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. A modern approach (4th ed.). South-Western.
2007.02.009 Xie, C., Zhang, J., & Huang, S. (2023). Effect of risk mes
Tekin, E. (2015). The impacts of political and economic sage framing on tourists’ travel intention: Roles of
uncertainties on the tourism industry in Turkey. resilience and impulsivity. Journal of Travel Research,
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 265–272. 62(4), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s5p265 00472875221095212
Tinbergen, J. 1962. Shaping the World economy; sugges Yan, X. T. (2019). Beyond geostrategic thinking.
tions for an international economic policy. Twentieth International Political Science, 4(4), 3–6. https://doi.
Century Fund. org/10.16513/j.cnki.qjip.2019.0022
Tiwari, A. K., Das, D., & Dutta, A. (2019). Geopolitical risk, Yang, F. X., Li, L. S., Yang, G., & Yuan, J. (2023). Political
economic policy uncertainty and tourist arrivals: ideological distance and tourism demand: The cultural–
Evidence from a developing country. Tourism political interplay. Annals of Tourism Research, 98,
Management, 75, 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 103525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103525
tourman.2019.06.002 Yan, X. T., & Zhou, F. Y. (2004). A quantitative measure
Tomczewska-Popowycz, N., & Quirini-Popławski, Ł. (2021). ment of international bilateral political relations.
Political instability Equals the Collapse of tourism in Social Sciences in China,6,90–103.
Ukraine? Sustainability, 13(8), 4126. https://doi.org/ Yaya, M. E. (2009). Terrorism and tourism: The case of
10.3390/su13084126 Turkey. Defence and Peace Economics, 20(6),
Trnka, S. 2008. Tourism or terrorism: Negotiating 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/
European desires and discourses of democracy. In 10242690903105414
B. V. Lal (Ed.), Fiji, twenty years on. Ganesh Chand and Yi, X., Fu, X., Jin, W., & Okumus, F. (2018). Constructing
Vijay Naidu, Fiji Institute of Applied Studies, pp. a model of exhibition attachment: Motivation, attach
143–154. ment, and loyalty. Tourism Management, 65, 224–236.
UNWTO. (2019). World Tourism Barometer and Statistical https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.006
Annex. World Tourism Organization. Retrieved Yu, Q., McManus, R., Yen, D. A., & Li, X. R. (2020). Tourism
February 15, 2021 https://www.unwto.org/unwto boycotts and animosity: A study of seven events.
tourism-dashboard. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102792. https://doi.
Vita, G. D. (2014). The long-run impact of exchange rate org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102792
Regimes on international tourism flows. Tourism Zeng, X. H., & Zhang, J. S. (2023). Frenemies: Research on
Management, 45, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. the Russian-Turkish Diversity-Orderly interaction
tourman.2014.05.001 model. World Economics and Politics, 6, 23–53.
Vita, G. D., & Kyaw, K. S. (2013). Role of the exchange rate in Zhou, Q. (2005). Conflicts over human rights between
tourism demand. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, China and the US. Human Rights Quarterly, 270(1),
624–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.07.011 105–124.
Walters, G., Wallin, A., & Hartley, N. (2019). The threat of Zhou, B., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, P. (2021). Multilateral political
terrorism and tourist choice behavior. Journal of effects on outbound tourism. Annals of Tourism
Travel Research, 58(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10. Research, 88(1), 103184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1177/0047287518755503 annals.2021.103184
Page 30 of 30

Tourism Inbound

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tourism Inbound

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cogent Social Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oass20

The impact of geopolitical risks and international

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2285244

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

View supplementary material

Published online: 27 Nov 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Subjects: International Relations; Asian Politics; Tourism

Keywords: geopolitical risks; inbound tourism; international relations; tourism gravity

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Geopolitical risk is one of the environmental foundations of international bilateral political

2. Literature review and theoretical hypothesis

2.1. Impact of international relations on inbound tourism

The impact of political relations on international tourism is heterogeneous, multilateral, and

2.1.2. Deteriorating political relations impede international tourism by generating hostility

2.1.3. Governments use tourism policy interventions to promote or discourage international

the operation of government-controlled channels—tourism policy when political tensions escalate

2.2. The influence of geopolitical risk (GPR) on inbound tourism

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Geopolitical risks have a negative impact on inbound tourism.

3. Data and methodology

3.1. Data source

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Figure 2. The spectrum of

Table 1. Description of variables in the measurement models

Variables Mean Standard IR GPR WHS lnFDI ROE lnDC lnPOP

3.2. Model selection

3.3. Estimation method

Figure 3. Differences in the 6

low geopolitical risk

high geopolitical risk

Funding 26(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.

Management, 32(6), 1332–1342. https://doi.org/10. 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.

You might also like